I have another one, also courtesy of my husband the Creationist.
Examples of instances where science DISPROOVES parts of the Bible. Are there any? If so, I would love to hear them and so would he. I say there is but can't cite examples, he says there isn't and never ever will be.
This is in response to this post and to your husband's views in the other thread (platypus one).
Galileo apparently said (quoting from Augustine):
quote: "And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'"
What science does do is disprove a particular interpretation of the bible. That of the young earthers for example and many others that are shown to be in conflict with fact.
If the creationist (in the popular use of the word) insist on trying to force religion into a science classroom by making up a thing called "creation science" or "Intelligent Design" then they are the ones setting the bible up for disproof not the scientists who simply want to learn.
You and your husband can rest assured there is no science that disproves the Bible. Now certainly they will say and have been taught that the earth is billions of years old etc. As they say many man-made radiometric methods agree. But as a Christian you will know that this actually comes from unbelief. You will find modern science does not allow any supernatural explanation. Man decides truth, not God anymore. So they won't even consider your logical though and conclusions because they teach them nowadays from birth that 2 + 2 = 5. But as Christians we know it's from unbelief because God is the eternal one. He can do things outside time which he created. Like to wine into water etc. Normally takes along time doesn't it? But not to God in eternity. So for example the six days of creation, alot of people laugh about being impossible. Well, thats six days in time. But God the eternal one, has the concepts and ideas into eternity. And if he put those into action in six 24 hour time days we know of. Theres nothing wrong with that. So really, it could of been a very short time, or a long time in eternity where he thought and created the code for us. However, your evolutionists won't see that at all. Because it is blocked off as an explanation. No No No, only time and matter which we are governed by. So about what they say about star light reaching us and all the rest of it. It just comes from unbelief and refusing anything supernatural. They don't understand that God the eternal one, can do anything without time. But again they don't understand as they are taught to believe in blind chance and it's all an illusion an no supernatual stuff is allowed. But ask yourself this, the latest evolutionary theory says a machine will arise by chance by seperating bad from good etc. Would the code to make this stuff be like that? Like a manual to a car? of course not. Anyway, relax. Nothing unscientific in the Bible.
Examples of instances where science DISPROOVES parts of the Bible.
It depends on how you read it. The ~6000 year young earth produced by a literal reading of the bible is falsified by science. Science says the world-wide flood never happened either. There are multiple threads on these topics in the Dates and Dating and the Geology and the Great Flood forums.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
You'll notice from WS's reply that one of the results of these discussions (if the creo stays around to actually consider what is known) is the conclusion that we may actually observe all these strong clues about the time spans and the nature of life on earth BUT these are simply how God made it all appear (light in transit etc.)
This has the unfortunate theological consequence of making that particular God out to be a malicious liar. The Norse named that God Loki. It seems many so called Christians like WS above actually worship Loki but don't know it.
This is one of the few end points of any of these discussions.
Another is the "thousands and thousands of scientists are lying/incompetant.
These are the positions that these people are willing to offer as "reasonable". :) It is fun to watch and amusing to point them out to friends. :)
Thousands of scientists of lying etc etc? Not deliberatley, But they are under the delusion that there is no purpose in life and that 2000 cells can chemically fit perfectly by chance, Plus trillions that make up the human body.
The reason most scientists believe this false theory is this, It is taught in all schools. Science allows no supernatural explanation. And, if you propose a purpose in biology today that is the sin against the holy ghost in biology. I'm sorry it is. and you'll be de-frocked quicker than you can say jack robinson. You try it and see. they'll either say well the mans a fool or just willfully wrong. Its just they are forcing blind chance beliefs and cutting out any other explanation. theres no sense in it. Otherwise we wouldn't need creation v evolution forums if it was obvious that paper writes books. Do not become slaves of men. As the scripture says. God word is truth. Not mens.
(1) The great flood and Noah and his family were suppose to have 2 of every "kind" of animal on their ark. There are currently about 2 million identified species of animal. Are we to believe that Noah gathered up 4 million animal and somehow had enough food and water to sustain them for a year on his boat? What about after the flood? Every animal and plant life had been destroyed by the world wide flood. If there were only 2 of every animal, what did the herbivores (plant eaters) eat and what did the carnivores (meat eaters) eat after they got off the ark? The lions needed to eat, so they ate a deer and there goes the species.
(2) If the universe was created 6 thousand years ago, how come we can see stars that are millions of light years away?
(3) Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." But we know through scientific observations that the Earth does indeed move.
(4) Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
The Earth is a circle? 2 dimensional? Flat? What more can I say?
(5) Ecclesiastes 1:6 "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course."
Just so you know, the wind direction is predominantly east and west, not north and south.
(6) Genesis 22:17 "I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies"
The number of people on Earth right now is about 6.4 billion. There is an estimated 400 billion stars in this galaxy alone. The number of people on Earth right now doesn't even come close to 400 billion. I've been told all my life that the rapture is just right around the corner... anytime now. Well?
Anyway, I'm sleepy now. Going to a picnic tomorrow. I'll add more later.
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
You'll notice that species adapt to their environment after awhile and other sorts of things from the genetic code they have built in them. In the garden of eden, do you think there were 2 million? of course not. Tazmanian devil won't accept that Biblical account of course. As can't see it. But can see earth billions of years ago apparently and watched the first primitive cell arise and evolve. Well of course he didn't. He's just been told this false theory at school. 2 dimensonal earth? does he know God does thing in 3 dimensions? Your genetic code proves that. Did he tell you that under the bottom skin of a snake there are tiny tiny legs? written up in it's genetic code, that do no good to the snake? But why? natural selection some how thinks and keeps the good parts and disregards the bad parts? some unexplainable evolution? or the fact that when God told the devil in the form of snake that he would crawl on his belly he lost his legs? Believe God, not Tazmanian devil, for the Devil has no mercy on your uneducated soul.
First, Noah was commanded to take 7 of each; that is male and female -prob. 14 tot. for one "kind" of clean animal and 4 - 8 tot. of unclean.(Gen.7:2-3). Furthermore, "kind" and modern day species do not necessarily belong in the same catagory. These numbers are fine for repopulation esp. with great genetic diversity within these early "kinds." Also, there would have been extra room on the ark for storage of food. There is also the issue of hybernation, and the fact that they may well have eaten one of the pairs. Although meat intake is relativly small comp. to herbavoirs and insectavoirs. Don't forget dried food as weel. This is not nearly exhaustive but lastly if you can get past Gen. 1:1 this should be no problem for God.
Two, The "problem" of light is not the only problem reguarding cosmology. There are many unresovled problem although not with theory's. One for the evolutionist is called the horizion problem. Nonetheless there are other models to explain this light problem, not to mention whether certain constants are not actually constant. To qoute a quick explanation of the horizion problem by David F. Coppedge: http://www.icr.org/article/3343/
"According to the Big Bang theory, the universe expanded in all directions from its initial state of high density. In your mind's eye, follow a tiny region on its path; at no time would it come in contact with the particles going in a different direction. The universe would never have mixed; each part of space was beyond the "horizon" of each other part. Herein is the problem. The universe looks homogeneous and isotropic. This means all parts of space appear uniform at large scales. The temperature of the cosmic background radiation is uniform to within one part in 100,000. If no parts ever mixed, how could they achieve such striking uniformity of temperature?
The horizon problem is recognized as a serious difficulty by all secular cosmologists. It was part of the motivation behind an ad-hoc proposal in 1980 called inflation. In addition, the standard Big-Bang model is plagued by the lumpiness problem (matter is structured into stars and galaxies), the entropy problem (the initial "cosmic egg" would have had to start with a high degree of order), the ignition problem (no cause for the expansion), and other more recent difficulties, like the amazingly precise balance between the acceleration rate and density.
Critics of Biblical cosmology, in other words, have their own bundle of problems. Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem should begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. Science is limited in fathoming such a complex subject as how the universe came to be. We have an Eyewitness that gave us enough information, corroborated by numerous other avenues of study, to justify putting our trust in His Word.
Third, reguarding points 3,4,and 6 - I think you need to pratice your literary skills a bit. Those are not ment to be scientific statements. For number six have you ever heard of hyperbole. My goodness is this it. Circle is quite sufficent for a sphere in ancient Hebrew. Also "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7).
Fourth, for number 5 - are you saying no wind direction N to S or S to N occurs.
This may lead the thread off topic, but if need be either WS-JW or I will 'take it outside'.
Did he tell you that under the bottom skin of a snake there are tiny tiny legs? written up in it's genetic code, that do no good to the snake? But why? natural selection some how thinks and keeps the good parts and disregards the bad parts? some unexplainable evolution? or the fact that when God told the devil in the form of snake that he would crawl on his belly he lost his legs?
The bible never says the snake had legs. The bible says that the snake was punished as follows:
quote:Gen 3:14 "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
For all we know, the snake could have had wings.
Plus, if the snake didn't have rudimentary legs, would that disprove the Bible? If the snake had rudimentary wings, would that disprove the Bible? Nope, creationists can accept any outcome as proof of the bible.
Evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, predict that snakes evolved from walking reptiles, and thus will retain some of the characters of their predecessors. If snakes had rudimentary wings, this would be a damaging blow to the evolutionary history of Squamates.
Edited by Doddy, : bbcode
Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
WS-JW - you need to practice your literary skills as well as T-Devil.
The Serpent is not an animal it is "The Satan" that is our Adversary.
The writer (Moses) wrote these words long after the events took place - do you think the people hearing these words or reading them understood it to be an aniaml (snake) NO, they understood it to be the Devil. (Rev. 20:1-2).
This being was more cunning than any beast of the field - thats anything that the LORD God had put on earth.
As far as the dust curse is concered do a word study on that and you see that it is refering to being brought low in humiliation not some literal choping off the legs of a snake - please. That is Satans ultimate destination - being humilated and rendered powerless by the The Seed of the woman.