Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Investigation of Biblical science errors
Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 138 (100683)
04-18-2004 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
04-15-2004 5:11 PM


Lam
After my first reading of each of those epics, I received no
scientific inspiration from the Illiad or the Odyssey. I know what you are trying to say, but after having read the Bible also, I see a great many differences between Homer's works, and what some call God's word. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, as it is often said, but it does reveal scientific truths.
Let me give a few examples: Until the 1960, most astronomers did not believe there was a beginning. They believed in what I believe they called the steady-state theory, which basically described the universe as unchanging and eternal. Of coarse, in the 1950's Penzias and Wilson discovered what was believed to be the echo of the Big Bang, and scientists were finally convinced that there was a beginning choosing to believe in the Big Bang theory. Interestingly what took science until the 1960's to finally conclude, was stated matter-of-factly in the first verse of the Bible.
The Bible also speaks of black holes in space, the complexities of weather patterns, and many other very fascinating issues that modern science is only begining to unravel.
Does this mean abandon science, thinking that the Bible provides all answers? Certainly not, for while the Bible may reveal certain truths, its primary motive is the message of becoming united with God again.
Having said that, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the Bible and science do not contradict each other, only our interpretations of each do.
Respectfully,
The Apostle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 04-15-2004 5:11 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 04-18-2004 2:50 AM Apostle has replied
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2004 11:06 AM Apostle has not replied
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 04-18-2004 5:15 PM Apostle has not replied

Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 138 (107814)
05-13-2004 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by coffee_addict
04-18-2004 2:50 AM


Lam
Unfortunately, I was not misinformed. I myself was mistaken due to my inability to remember the detail, but my source was right. (I just didnt use it). Going back to a few sources on the steady-state theory, I see several errors in the history of what I wrote. The steady state was indeed proposed after the date that I gave.
In as far as the nature of the steady state, I believe my description of it was true. It is certainly backed up by my sources. Defenders referred to the 'perfect cosmological principle' which suggested that the earth must be essentially uniform in both time and place. While scientific opinion was not stacked in favor of this view, as I earlier suggested, not all were harsh critics like Sir Herbert Dingle. I would say, that until the discovery of background radiation, for some time, there may have been a split in opinion between the two views: Steady-State and Big Bang.
Nevertheless, my original posting is riddled with uncharacteristic errors, and I will have to be more careful next time.
Regarding interesting Biblical statements, we shall deal with them individually if it proves worthwhile. Lets begin with the wind.
Read Ecclesiastes 1:6. It is interesting that Solomon was familiar with the planetary winds that had them going from south to north and then back south again. Not a huge deal, we may conclude. But I find it interesting.
I will deal with other presented concerns at a later date. I have been having trouble contributing here, and the only reason I had time today was because I was forced to stay home because of a beautiful May blizzard.
Apostle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 04-18-2004 2:50 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 05-13-2004 12:39 AM Apostle has replied

Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 138 (108376)
05-15-2004 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
05-13-2004 12:39 AM


jar
Planetary winds are south to north, not north to south as you misquoted me on saying.
Apostle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 05-13-2004 12:39 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 05-15-2004 10:21 AM Apostle has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024