2) interpret the text in harmony with extra-biblical data (my approach)
This is essentially circular reasoning. If you start from the assumption that no "valid" interpretation of the Bible can be contradicted by the consensus scientific view, then obviously you're not going to find any "valid" interpretations that are contradicted by science.
The question isn't "how can we interpret the Bible in accordance with scientific understanding of the world", it's "how do we interpret the Bible in the way its authors intended?" And the question is, do statements in the Bible, as interpreted with their original meaning, contradict our scientific understanding of the world?
In an abundance of cases, the answer to that question is clearly "yes." But if you insist on interpreting the Bible not in any defensibly authentic way, but with whatever backbends are necessary to cram it in-line with modern science, then naturally you're going to be able to do that. The Bible, like any text, is infinitely pliable.
The question is, why bother? If the Bible has meaning that you cherish, why would you have to reject that meaning simply because the Bible leaves much to be desired as a science text?
Does Romeo and Juliet lose any meaning when we understand that neither Romeo nor Juliet were people who actually existed? That, indeed, Shakespeare had never been to Verona? It was once said that "art is a lie that tells us the truth." The same could be applied to all myths. Why can't the Bible remain meaningful even as we percieve it to be mythical? Why does it have to be literally true to tell us truths?
Why does it have to be literally true to tell us truths?
Evidently, because it makes it easier to justify cramming those truths down other people's throats.
Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?
A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger
Red corpusals carry all the oxygen to the Mitochondria.
The white carry the nutrients to the Mitochondria.
The Mitochondria converts this into ATP energy.
The red corpusals are the only cells The Mitochondria are not in.
Without the oxygen and nutrients there would be no energy and thus no life.
You established that blood is a cog in the wheel of some life. Take the cog out it and life quits working. But there are many many other cogs just as important bile, electrolytes, gastric acids, brain chemistry, enzymes of all sorts, also lungs, heart, etc. Heck they even have artificial blood these days. Also there is life that does not use blood.
The life of the flesh is not IN blood. The blood is component of the machine.
Regardless your attempt in all this is make some claim that the Bible some how demonstrated advanced biological knowledge. It doesn't. Other older cultures got the connection between blood and life.
OBTW "Heart" is incorrect metaphor, and one the persists to this day because of the influence of Bible in our culture. You cannot love with all your heart - your heart is pump.
More than happy to pick up this notion of "Life is IN the Blood" in another thread if you can properly frame your position.
quote:modulous Right, not where did the singularity come from? Nothing. But nothing happened before the big bang as in - there wasn't anything happening before the big bang - there was no where or when for it to happen
But this says nothing, more than there was nothing. There is the issue of 'nothing' becoming 'something' - which requires energy, forces, programs, matter, light etc - even disregarding a 'mind'. Ultimately, you arrive at Genesis: SOMETHING FROM NOTHING. Like a snap o the finger. I see no dif!
the earth completed its formation to reach its current approximate size about 4.56 billion years ago through a process of gradually dragging in material from the early solar system by way of gravity and collisions over millions and millions of years.
But Percy you are saying the earth was fully formed 4:56 billion years ago. But that it had taken millions and millions of years to grow to the present size. Are you sure it didn't take billions of years? But nevertheless you have it older than 4.56 billion years.
I gave the age of the earth since it completed its formation, not since it began its formation. Obviously if the formation was completed 4.56 billion years ago, it must have begun formation some time before that.
Significant collisions kept the young earth molten. Once the earth had cleared out its orbital area, significant collisions ceased, and the earth began cooling, finally reaching the point where rocks could solidify on the earth's surface, bringing the mixing and resorting that resets radiometric clocks to an end, at least on the surface. The cessation of major collisions and the initiation of sustained cooling began around 4.56 billion years ago. The oldest rocks are about 3.9 billion years old, and there's no guarantee that older rocks aren't out there somewhere waiting to be found, but the presence of this 3.9 billions year old rocks means that it took no longer than about 700 million years for the earth's surface to cool sufficiently for the molten material to begin solidifying.
How many years did it take for the solar nebula to condense into the planets? I'm not really sure. I'd look it up if I thought it was important. If it was 10 million years, which is probably a very reasonable number, then the earth began forming 4.57 billion years ago, which is about a quarter of 1% different from the 4.56 billion year age. A little larger than 10 million years, even 100 million years, what difference would it make, those ages of initiation of formation are still far smaller than your 13.7 billion year age.
As PaulK notes, the dating of non-terrestrial rocks from meteorites and the moon and so forth have played a significant role in determining the precise time since the earth formed. They also serve as complementary supporting evidence, since meteorites and the moon are the same approximate age as the earth.
The issue isn't what your God could do, it's what he did do. How are you going to tell whether something God could have done is actually something he really did do? Especially if it isn't in the Bible? In other words, if it has no scientific support and no Biblical support and you can't support it yourself, then this might not be a good time to introduce such ideas into the discussion.
Science answers questions about what really happened by gathering data from the real world and analyzing it. This creates a direct connection between the real world and our hypotheses.
quote:I simply made a prediction using information I find in the Bible.
If that prediction comes true then the Bible is proven true.
So, if you make a prediction based upon information in the bible that turns out to fail, is the Bible proven false?
quote:And it does not make any difference what science says.
If you don't care what science says, then why do you try to use it to bolster your position?
It really kills me that people like you, who benefit greatly from hundreds of years of scientific inquiry, who, in fact, are typing on a science-produced computer right now, can so arrogantly dismiss it whenever your irrational belief in magic is threatened.
You should be thanking your lucky stars that mankind invented the scientific method, otherwise we'd stillbe burning goats on altars to Yaweh to ensure a fruitful harvest.