Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8924 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2019 10:30 PM
24 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 859,867 Year: 14,903/19,786 Month: 1,626/3,058 Week: 404/868 Day: 43/70 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Author Topic:   Where Science And The Bible Meet
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 1624 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 196 of 208 (507935)
05-09-2009 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Michamus
05-08-2009 4:19 PM


Thanks for your sympathetic attitude regards my English.

You say: “This is assuming we have reached the final destination of scientific inquiry.” I don’t see a relation between my assumptions and the hypothetical end of the human scientifical inquiry. In my previous analogy I likened the learning (in sense of knowledge) relation between the ancient peoples with us today to graduates compared to those attending the primary school. But the analogy works also if we compared the two group of peoples to middle school students/primary school school students. What I want to say is that if a primary school student is able to solve, for example, a math problem, also a middle school student must be able to do the same (except he is unwilling to learn, obviously), necessarily. It is not important if the middle school student hasn’t “reached the final destination of his (scholastic) inquiry”. The principle included into the analogy remains valid, anyway.

After, you speak about the “numerous inaccuracies that are now known to be patently false”. I encourage you to dig more deep (this is one advantage to do so) in the Bible to understand what the Scriptures really say. I state beforehand, to avoid any misunderstandings, that we are free to accept or refuse what the Bible say. My point is try to set what the Bible really says. Because only on this base we can perceive if the Bible contains inaccuracies, contradictions or similar or not.

It is enough answer your first “inaccuracy” to have a clear head. You say: “For instance Genesis makes mention of non-streaked goats looking at streaked rods, which makes them give birth to streaked offspring.”
Evidently you refer to Genesis 30:37-42 where we meet Jacob be caught up in the problem to induce his flocks to give birth a streaked offspring with a bizarre device apparently with the idea that if the animal looked at the stripes when in heat there would be a prenatal influence that would make the offspring mottled or abnormal in colour. Since the desired results were obtained, Jacob probably thought his stratagem with the striped sticks was responsible. In this he no doubt shared the same misconception commonly held by many people (until today, regrettably), namely, that such things can have an effect on the offspring.

This Jacob viewpoint is a BIBLE inaccuracy?
Or is it a JACOB misunderstanding of the genetics principles?

A book can be extremely accurate to report facts and happenings and this may include to cite exactly also erroneous statements of some characters comprised in it. So, if we dig more deep what we find out? That the Creator, in a dream to Jacob instructed him otherwise.

Read it in Genesis 31:10-12.

In his dream Jacob learned that certain principles of genetics, and not the sticks, were responsible for his success. Whereas Jacob was tending only solid-colored animals, yet the vision revealed that the male goats were striped, speckled, and spotty. How could this be? Apparently they were hybrids even though of uniform color, the result of crossbreeding in Laban’s flock before Jacob began being paid. So certain of these animals carried in their reproductive cells the hereditary factors for spotting and speckling future generations, according to the laws of heredity discovered by Gregor Mendel.

At this point I repeat myself: we are free to accept or not the fact that the Creator exists and was in touch with Jacob, and so on… The point is: the Bible not endorse the Jacob’s erroneous idea about genetics. Then, this is only an alleged inaccuracy. An accurate study of the Bible (it can last for considerable time) can help us to reach the conclusion the it is a divine message to the humans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Michamus, posted 05-08-2009 4:19 PM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Michamus, posted 05-09-2009 5:41 AM Asteragros has responded

    
Michamus
Member (Idle past 3382 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 197 of 208 (507949)
05-09-2009 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Asteragros
05-09-2009 4:15 AM


Asteragros writes:


Thanks for your sympathetic attitude regards my English.


No problem. I can already see your English is improving ;)

Asteragros writes:


You say: �This is assuming...
...The principle included into the analogy remains valid, anyway.


From what it would appear to me, you are saying we are merely a middle point in a long progression of increased understanding, and our position is no different than that of the ancients in that regard. I would agree with you, if I understand what you are saying correctly.

Asteragros writes:


I encourage you to dig more deep (this is one advantage to do so) in the Bible to understand what the Scriptures really say.


What would you consider "did more deep"? What would you determine as the meaning of "what the Scriptures really say"?

I would say from my own personal, and accredited experience in scriptural study, that "what the scriptures really say" is exactly that, what they say. If you can show me contextually, or etymologically how I am mistaken in my observation on these inaccuracies, that I would concede. The issue however is that these are known inaccuracies that have been known for quite some time.

Asteragros writes:


Evidently you refer to Genesis 30:37-42 where we meet Jacob be caught up in the problem to induce his flocks to give birth a streaked offspring...
This Jacob viewpoint is a BIBLE inaccuracy?
Or is it a JACOB misunderstanding of the genetics principles?


You are missing the point. Who told Jacob to have the flocks look upon the rod, and why? If you want to know what the scriptures really say, then you need to actually read the entire story or series of events.

Asteragros writes:


Genesis 31:10-12

In his dream Jacob learned that certain principles of genetics


Or... the ancients noticed that a single striped parent coupled with a plain parent can produce striped offspring. You need to realize that domestication and breeding of animals occurred millenia before the first book of the Bible was written.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Asteragros, posted 05-09-2009 4:15 AM Asteragros has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Asteragros, posted 05-09-2009 4:12 PM Michamus has not yet responded

    
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 1624 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 198 of 208 (507996)
05-09-2009 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Michamus
05-09-2009 5:41 AM



  • In a mine message (# 186) I’ve yet explained that the human history is not necessarily unwinds itself in a progressive and constant escalation of knowledge (another historical example? The Egyptian 5th and 6th dynasty’s pyramid builders possessed a store of architectural/engineering knowledge far more inferior compared to that of their colleagues of the 4th dynasty, any reason was the cause of that decline of knowledge). So, a better definition of our state of knowlegde inside the flow of time could be: the human history has been characterized by an relatively increase of knowledge interspersed with fluctuations of its degree.

  • I agree with you, completely, as regards the meaning of “what the Scriptures really say”. Surely, factors like context, applied linguistics, analysis of the sources, comparative history, anthropology and a lot of other elements help us to understand “what the Scriptures really say”. A scientific analysis of the Bible strenghten its reliability instead of the contrary.

  • Michamus says:
    ”Who told Jacob to have the flocks look upon the rod, and why? If you want to know what the scriptures really say, then you need to actually read the entire story or series of events.”

    I’ve actually read this story (and the entire Bible) dozens of time, some time in the original language, also. Sorry, but I don’t know what you mean.

    I wrote:

    “In this he [Jacob] no doubt shared the same misconception commonly held by many people (until today, regrettably), namely, that such things can have an effect on the offspring.” He did think that his device could work, so producing birthmarks (spots and specks) on the fleeces of the flock. Neither God nor God’s angel or prophet instructed him to do so. Quite the opposite, I’ve yet explained that “the Creator, in a dream to Jacob instructed him otherwise. Read it in Genesis 31:10-12.”


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Michamus, posted 05-09-2009 5:41 AM Michamus has not yet responded

    
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 1624 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 199 of 208 (512410)
06-17-2009 3:03 PM


In this mine message I will try to clear:
  • (1) the Bible position toward science, and then
  • (2) the real Biblical meaning of blood such as regards its capability to be "receptacle" of life.

    1

    First of all, the Bible does not claim to teach science.
    Rather, it reveals God’s standards, aspects of his personality that creation alone cannot teach, and his purpose for humans (Psalm 19:7-11; 2 Timothy 3:16).
    Yet, when the Bible does refer to natural phenomena, it is consistently accurate.
    Galileo Galilei himself said: “Both the Holy Scriptures and nature proceed from the Divine Word... Two truths can never contradict one another.”

    Consider the following examples.
    Even more fundamental than the movement of stars and planets is that all matter in the universe is governed by laws.

    The earliest known non-Biblical reference to physical laws was made by Pythagoras, who believed that the universe could be explained by numbers. Two thousand years later, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton finally proved that matter is governed by rational laws.

    The earliest Biblical reference to natural law is contained in the book of Job. About 1600 B.C.E., God asked Job: “Have you come to know the statutes [or, laws] of the heavens?” (Job 38:33)
    Recorded in the seventh century B.C.E., the book of Jeremiah refers to God as the Creator of “the statutes of the moon and the stars” and “the statutes of heaven and earth.” (Jeremiah 31:35; 33:25)
    In view of these statements, Bible commentator G. Rawlinson observed: “The general prevalence of law in the material world is quite as strongly asserted by the sacred writers as by modern science.”

    So, if we use Pythagoras as a point of reference, the statement in Job was about a thousand years ahead of its time. Keep in mind that the Bible’s objective is not simply to reveal physical facts but primarily to impress upon us that God is the Creator of all things—the one who can create physical laws (Job 38:4, 12; 42:1, 2).

    Another example we can consider is that the earth’s waters undergo a cyclic motion called the water cycle, or the hydrologic cycle. Put simply, water evaporates from the sea, forms clouds, precipitates onto the land, and eventually returns to the sea.

    The oldest surviving non-Biblical references to this cycle are from the fourth century B.C.E.

    However, Biblical statements predate that by hundreds of years. For example, in the 11th century B.C.E., King Solomon of Israel wrote: “All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the rivers come, to there and from there they return again.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7, The Amplified Bible.)
    Likewise, about 800 B.C.E. the prophet Amos, a humble shepherd and farmworker, wrote that God is “the One calling for the waters of the sea, that he may pour them out upon the surface of the earth” (Amos 5:8).
    So, without using technical language, both Solomon and Amos accurately described the water cycle, each from a slightly different perspective.

    The Bible also speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing,” or he “suspends earth in the void,” according to The New English Bible (Job 26:7).
    In view of the knowledge available in 1600 B.C.E., roughly when those words were spoken, it would have taken a remarkable man to assert that a solid object can remain suspended in space without any physical support.
    We are to remember that Aristotle himself rejected the concept of a void, and he lived over 1,200 years later!

    2

    Now, passing on the blood subject, we have to understand what Bible really says about it.
    Some forum member think the Bible teaches blood has a ..., a more different status respect to other body's organs.
    But, are they sure that this is what the Bible really teaches on blood?

    To answer this question we have to compare two Genesis passages with the same formal conceptual structure.
    "And the Lord God gave the man orders, saying, You may freely take of the fruit of every tree of the garden. But of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not take; for on the day when you take of it, death will certainly come to you.'" (Genesis 2:16, 17, Bible in Basic English). "And God [...] said to them: 'Every creeping thing which is alive shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green plant. But you shall not eat flesh in its life, its blood'" (Genesis 9:1, 3, 4, Literal Translation of the Holy Bible).

    We all are able to extrapolate from these passages the same inner conceptual structure:


    • God establishes what is – inside an ensamble of obiects (in a mathematical acceptation) - to be excluded for the human personal use. Leviticus 17:11, 12 says (bold is added): "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life" (American Standard Version).
    • The sacredness which God vests the personal-use-excluded object doesn't imply an innate difference between this object and the other same ensemble's objects. The difference is acquired, not innate.

    So, in no point the Bible sustains the idea that some fruits of the Eden's tree of the knowledge of good and evil had a innate power to give death to men if they were eaten (like as a venomous mushroom); or that they were envelopped in a deadly aura.
    In the same manner, the Bible doesn't teach that blood had a similar mystic power innate in it.

    God is who vests to this objects a symbolic meanings.
    Regarding blood, a Bible commentary states: "God, as the sovereign author and proprietor of nature, reserved the blood to Himself and allowed men only one use of it - in the way of sacrifices" (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown).
    As regards blood, God did choose – among a lot of human body's vital organs, first of them, the brain – a liquid (and life's representative) organ.
    The best choice was just blood.


      It is one of the body'svital organs.
      It is a liquid organ to be poured (on the altar's base, on the ground) for atonement purposes.
      It is visually representative of life that wastes away (expecially when a person are losing it).

    Another Bible passage can help us to confirm the fact that is God who lends to some objects the status of sacredness; status these objects don't possess before God bestowal: Leviticus 5:2-11.

    In the cases mentioned in this passage, the Israelite individual had sinned in some manner. He was to confess his sin and present a guilt offering. Now, depending on the one's means, the offer did can consist of (from the high priced to the lower): "a female lamb or a female kid of a goats (verses 5, 6); "two turtledoves or two young pigeons" (verse 7); or, "the tenth of an ephah of fine flour" (verse 11).

    So, for the very poor, God chose to make an exeption and allow a sin offering without blood (compare Leviticus 17:11). In Israel, poverty denied no one the blessing of atonement or the privilege of making peace with God.

    This fact proves beyond doubts that blood had no mystic power innate in it, otherwise if the Israelite ones had offered that bloodless offering, he wouldn't have received the sin forgiveness.
    What makes difference is how God decides to considerate an object.

    So, like a touchstone, an abuse of these sacred objects (the fruits of the Eden's tree of the knowledge of good and evil, in one instance; or blood, in another) reveals the person's real attitude toward the laws of God and toward his legitimacy to set what is wrong and what is right, for mankind.


        
  • Sky-Writing
    Member (Idle past 3377 days)
    Posts: 162
    From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
    Joined: 03-12-2009


    Message 200 of 208 (546459)
    02-11-2010 12:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by ArchArchitect
    04-18-2007 7:47 PM


    quote:
    I have heard many people say that Science and the Bible are enemies and do not fit together at all. In reality the people that make that statement are wrong:

    The two are not.
    First, Christians built "Science."
    Second, I depend on Science Journals to support everything the Bible says. "Science News" is my favorite source for spotting research or stories that relate to Origins and Evolution.
    I always end up smiling.

    Edited by Sky-Writing, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 7:47 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 201 by Coyote, posted 02-11-2010 12:39 AM Sky-Writing has responded
     Message 202 by anglagard, posted 02-11-2010 2:21 AM Sky-Writing has responded

      
    Coyote
    Member (Idle past 331 days)
    Posts: 6117
    Joined: 01-12-2008


    Message 201 of 208 (546461)
    02-11-2010 12:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 200 by Sky-Writing
    02-11-2010 12:15 AM


    Why are you smiling?
    Second, I depend on Science Journals to support everything the Bible says. "Science News" is my favorite source for spotting research or stories that relate to Origins and Evolution.
    I always end up smiling.

    Science journals have disproved the belief in a global flood at about 4,350 years ago.

    I have evidence from my own archaeological research that disproves that belief.

    Why are you smiling?


    Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 200 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-11-2010 12:15 AM Sky-Writing has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 203 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-11-2010 8:27 AM Coyote has responded

      
    anglagard
    Member
    Posts: 2200
    From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
    Joined: 03-18-2006
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 202 of 208 (546466)
    02-11-2010 2:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 200 by Sky-Writing
    02-11-2010 12:15 AM


    Sky-Writing writes:

    First, Christians built "Science."

    The basic origin of science, indeed the origin of there are two sides to every story, is from the Greeks some 500 or so years before the birth of Christ. You don't have to take my word for it, read.

    Second, I depend on Science Journals to support everything the Bible says. "Science News" is my favorite source for spotting research or stories that relate to Origins and Evolution.

    Science News is hardly a journal, but rather a less offensive version of the National Enquirer. The two main general peer reviewed journals of science are Nature and (coincidentally) Science.

    I always end up smiling.

    So do most the people I have met formerly known as mentally retarded.

    Edited by anglagard, : mentally


    The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
    — Salman Rushdie

    This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 200 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-11-2010 12:15 AM Sky-Writing has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 204 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-11-2010 8:42 AM anglagard has not yet responded

        
    Sky-Writing
    Member (Idle past 3377 days)
    Posts: 162
    From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
    Joined: 03-12-2009


    Message 203 of 208 (546491)
    02-11-2010 8:27 AM
    Reply to: Message 201 by Coyote
    02-11-2010 12:39 AM


    Re: Why are you smiling?
    The only possible explanation is that I've not run across that article.
    Or series of articles. Of course, this would be a dispassionate conclusion. But it's hard to imagine why anyone would gather the needed data together without having a vested interest in the result.
    I look forward seeing your information.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 201 by Coyote, posted 02-11-2010 12:39 AM Coyote has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 205 by Coyote, posted 02-11-2010 10:43 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

      
    Sky-Writing
    Member (Idle past 3377 days)
    Posts: 162
    From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
    Joined: 03-12-2009


    Message 204 of 208 (546494)
    02-11-2010 8:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 202 by anglagard
    02-11-2010 2:21 AM


    Sky-Writing writes:

    First, Christians built "Science."

    The basic origin of science, indeed the origin of there are two sides to every story, is from the Greeks some 500 or so years before the birth of Christ. You don't have to take my word for it, read.

    Point taken. I meant to refer to Modern Science rather than the middle ages and earlier.

    Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box some.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 202 by anglagard, posted 02-11-2010 2:21 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 206 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2010 12:26 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

      
    Coyote
    Member (Idle past 331 days)
    Posts: 6117
    Joined: 01-12-2008


    Message 205 of 208 (546514)
    02-11-2010 10:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 203 by Sky-Writing
    02-11-2010 8:27 AM


    Re: Why are you smiling?
    The only possible explanation is that I've not run across that article.
    Or series of articles. Of course, this would be a dispassionate conclusion. But it's hard to imagine why anyone would gather the needed data together without having a vested interest in the result.
    I look forward seeing your information.

    OK, here is the short version of the information I have generated in my own archaeological research.

    First, the date given for the global flood by biblical scholars centers on 4,350 years ago. Forget the Cambrian explosion and geological strata--we are dealing with soils, not rocks at that time period.

    Those soils are quite common. You probably have soils of that age in your back yard. All we need to do is find a nice soil profile and see what it tells us. Geomorphologists and sedimentologists can read those layers like a book. Many archaeologists can as well.

    So, we just need to look in the local soils, identify the time periods, and see if there is a major discontinuity caused by either erosion or massive deposition as would be created by a flood of biblical proportions.

    As an added bonus, we can look in archaeological sites. They give us extra materials for dating as the inhabitants left bone and marine shell in the sites, and their fires provided us with a lot of charcoal. Radiocarbon dating can tell us what the ages of those materials are.

    In the archaeological sites I've worked with, many hundreds in several states, there is no evidence of a flood at the appointed time. Neither have my colleagues, or the geomorphologists and sedimentologists around the world reported evidence of a global flood at that time.

    One additional piece of evidence: both my work and the works of others have produced ancient mtDNA. All you need to do to disprove the global flood is find mtDNA from earlier than 5,000 years ago and match it up in the same area with living descendants. That has been done. If the mtDNA is continuous, rather than being replaced some 4,000 years ago with DNA from Noah's kin, that right there disproves a global flood. I have found such ancient mtDNA in my work, and the oldest case I know of in my local area spans about 10,000 years.

    There we have, from just my work, sufficient evidence to disprove the global flood--at the time specified by biblical scholars we have no evidence in the soils for such a flood, and we have continuity of mtDNA across that time period. (We also have continuity of soil layers, fauna and flora, and human cultures pretty much all around the world.)

    There are thousands of examples like the ones I have cited. And, there is no credible scientific evidence to the contrary. I'd say you have no reason to be smiling. The global flood as read in the bible is a myth.


    Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 203 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-11-2010 8:27 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16097
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 206 of 208 (546524)
    02-11-2010 12:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 204 by Sky-Writing
    02-11-2010 8:42 AM


    "Modern Science"
    Point taken. I meant to refer to Modern Science rather than the middle ages and earlier.

    Well that's not true either. To take an example more or less at random, Francis Crick and James Watson, who discovered the structure of DNA, are both outspoken atheists, not Christians. Or does "Modern Science" exclude molecular genetics?

    Do Einstein's discoveries count as "Modern Science"? Einstein, who wrote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

    I could go on ...

    Moreove, if we restrict "modern" to meaning within the last hundred years or so, then whatever proportion of "Modern Science" has been contributed by Christians, even those who did profess the Christian religion have also been overwhelmingly of the opinion that Creationism is completely batshit crazy.

    Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 204 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-11-2010 8:42 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

      
    achristian1985
    Inactive Member


    Message 207 of 208 (548413)
    02-27-2010 3:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by ArchArchitect
    04-18-2007 7:47 PM


    large area, but right track
    I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.
    The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
    Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
    Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.

    For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
    Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139

    To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
    If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?

    There are six specific categories of life formed in the six?day account: 1. Plants in the sea, 2. Vegetation (plants and trees) on the
    land, 3. Life (fish) in the sea, 4. Birds over the earth, 5. Life (cattle, etc.) on the earth, 6. Man.
    The order of their listing in the six?day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence:
    O1. Sea-plants: Pre?Cambrian 531 million B.C.
    2. Land vegetation: Mid?Silurian 365?380 million B.C.
    3. Aquatic life: Devonian 255?316 million B.C.
    4. Birds: Jurassic 131 million B.C.
    5. Land life: Paleocene Epoch 50?60 million B.C.
    6. Man: Late Tertiary Period 1?3 million B.C.

    Author’s note (2/23/10): the above paragraph is not correct as is. I have been told that this ordering is not valid. There are 3 possibilities for this:
    1. The ordering of the six-day account is not literal, but is allegorical. (I do not wish to arbitrarily abandon this, since it is strong evidence of science verifying the Bible. 2. The six-day account is literal, and the ordering is correct. A. There are two separate ‘creations’ in Genesis: One which occurred between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2 which ended in the pre-Adamic race who rebelled, were judged with water, and became the disembodied spirits known as demons. B. The six-day account which resulted in Homo Sapiens. 3. Although evidence of the traces of the civilization of the pre-Adamic race were removed, traces of the geologic ages involved (unknown length) still exist. These traces may very well be interwoven with the geology involving Homo Sapiens. This interweaving may very well be the cause of the scientific chronology contradicting a literal ordering of the six life-forms of the six-day account. I will update this ASAP if further relevant empirical conclusions can be made.

    Do you really believe that this is coincidental? How did Moses know the correct order when he wrote Genesis thousands of years ago, long before the rise of the scientific methods that have objectively verified the Genesis account? The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence. Truly the Bible is the inspired Word of God!

    www.amessageforthehumanrace.org


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 7:47 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded

      
    anthonylau 
    Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 3312 days)
    Posts: 20
    Joined: 04-24-2010


    Message 208 of 208 (557242)
    04-24-2010 12:54 AM


    spam deletion

    Edited by AdminAsgara, : spam deletion


        
    RewPrev1
    ...
    910111213
    14
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019