Divine rain vs. meteorological precipitation

I recently read an excellent book entitled "Paradigms on Pilgrimage" (it's a critical look at the creationist perspective, written by both a palaeontologist and a pastor). One of the chapters in the book raises the issue of 'divine rain vs. meteorological precipitation.' The authors essentially question why there is no creationist movement working against modern meteorology, as it has come to explain the phenomenon of rain without an appeal to God (e.g. related to adiabatic, orographic, pressure effects, etc.). According to the Bible, however, rain is clearly brought forth only by God's doing (e.g. Gen 2:5; Lev 26:4; Deut 28:12; 1 Sam 12:18; Matt 5:45; etc.). I would love to know from the creationists on this board if and why they have come to accept the scientific interpretation of rain, but not the scientific interpretation as to the diversity of life on earth. Why the double-standard?

Where would you like this to go?

You're the admin... you tell me where it goes!
Maybe Miscellaneous? Not sure where else to put it...

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Science says how, God superintends why. For all of it. Why the rain came this way but not that, why the winds went that direction and not this, why the temperature dropped here but rose there etc. Meteorologists can't know the whys beyond the most immediate cause and effect and even then circumstances are always changing on them.

Faith Then you accept that the physics we have is correct in explaining how the world operates yes?This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2006-03-06 08:53 AM

quote:

---

Science says how, God superintends why.

---

So you accept, then, the scientific explanation as to how rain forms and falls. Why do you not also accept the scientific explanation as to how life diversifies? Why the double standard? You never really answered my question. You just supported my initial assertion.

Genesis 1:7: This seems to indicate that the author of Genesis accepted the belief common in the Middle East at this time that the sky was a solid dome that separated waters in heaven from the waters on the earth.In case there is any doubt, we also have Genesis 7:11: So there you have it. Heaven has windows, and rain is caused when those windows are opened, allowing the waters in heaven to fall onto the earth. Again, consistent with the cosmology of the peoples in this area.So, a literal interpretation of the Bible would lead one to believe that the sky is a solid dome and rain occurs when these windows are open.Of course, these days we have the hydrology cyclists attempting to compromise the Word of God, but they are doing Satan's work. After all, which will you believe, the Eternal, Unchanging Word of God, or scientists who change their theories every year?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Science says how, God superintends why.

---

So, does this mean that you accept that DNA is the basis of all heredity, as Biologists and Geneticists do?

Of course. But the idea of descent from one kind to another is a misinterpretation of DNA.

Of course.

I think the explanation as to how life diversifies, meaning the ToE I suppose, is bad science. No double standard. The ToE is unverifiable and unfalsfiable, nothing but an imaginative self-validating construct, all interpretation with no point at which one can enter and say for sure it is right or wrong. Bad science. Or not science at all.I have to be gone for a while so if I don't get back to future answers for a day or two I will eventually.

This is not in any way a biology topic.Any mention of biology, biological evolution, or the theory of (biological) evolution is off-topic.AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-06-2006 04:18 PM

---

quote:

---

But the idea of descent from one kind to another is a misinterpretation of DNA.

---

Are you willing to explain how it is a misinterpretation if I start another thread?