Trusting science

[AV1611VET]

Or not to get caught up in genealogies?

No --- It says "endless genealogies" ---

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Endless genealogies = evolution.

 

[Mallon]

No --- It says "endless genealogies" ---Endless genealogies = evolution.

So long as we're insisting on reading the Bible literally, this passage cannot be referring to evolution because evolution had a beginning and is not 'endless'.

 

[Matthewj1985]

I am fairly liberal in my theology and I do not represent anyone else here but myself.

If proven, testable science goes against my religious belief then I draw one of 2 conclusions.

1. My understanding of said passage is wrong. Since God forsaw me being in this situation billions of zillions of years ago he would not have made the scriptures violate the natural laws. I don't believe in a God that asks me to chose faith over reality.

2. Maybe my religion is the wrong one. The only real reason I subscribe to the religion I do over any of the other millions is because it is the one I grew up with. Proof wise the bible can no more be proven valid on it's divinity claims then can any other book of it's kind.

Then again number 2 leads to the logical question of "If there is only 1 true religion then why are there so many and none of them can back up their claims to divinity with evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

So long as we're insisting on reading the Bible literally, this passage cannot be referring to evolution because evolution had a beginning and is not 'endless'.

I insist on reading It literally, I do not insist on reading It ultra-literally. If I did, then I would be making the point that the Bible does not mention a "universe", let alone "evolution".

What then, in your opinion, is Paul ultra-literally talking about?

 

[lucaspa]

When it comes to questions of faith, I'll trust the Bible before any book that was not inspired by God.

But isn't Creation due to God? That is, if you believe God created, then what did He create? Creation -- the physical universe -- right? What does science study? The physical universe.

What you have told us is that you are willing to ignore God and what He says in His Creation and listen only to your interpretation of the Bible. How can ignoring God be good?

Christians in 1832 stated this:
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

What you are stating, pudmuddle, is one of the reasons creationism and Biblical literalism are such bad theology. Forget how bad they are as science for a moment. You are telling us that you refuse to listen to God because you don't like the message.

 

[AV1611VET]

But isn't Creation due to God? That is, if you believe God created, then what did He create? Creation -- the physical universe -- right? What does science study? The physical universe.

Lucas, if I jumped from the 20th floor of a building onto the sidewalk below, chances are I'm a dead man.

If Adam did it in Genesis 1, he would have enjoyed the ride down, then gone back up to do it again.

See my point?

Are you telling me current science can study the Creation, as God created it (i.e. pre-Fall)?

 

[lucaspa]

Unlike today's science, which has a very short shelf-life, the Bible's truths are eternal.

???? Let's see. Are you referring to round earth theory? Cell theory? Heliocentrism?

What you are missing, AV1611VET, is that science builds on older theories. As Whewell pointed out in the late 1800s, one "theory" becomes the "fact" in another theory. Whewell's example was Kepler's theories on planetary motion. These are "facts" in Newton's theory of gravitation. Newton's theory of gravitation, in turn, becomes a limiting case "fact" in Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

The Bible's truths are theological truths. They are set in the best "science" of the day. That science and cosmology are wrong.

What is untrue is trying to set up a literal interpretation of the Bible as your god. That violates the 1st Commandment.

I hope you appreciate the irony and hypocrisy of telling us that Biblical truths are eternal while you are in the process of violating one of those basic truths.

 

[Mallon]

I insist on reading It literally, I do not insist on reading It ultra-literally.

Whatever that's supposed to mean...

What then, in your opinion, is Paul ultra-literally talking about?

Paul doesn't strike me as a fan of Jewish tradition. It seems to me that in his letters to Paul and Titus, he is advocating against the traditional appeal to genealogies and other "Jewish myths" (Titus 1:14) because they distract from the gospel. I certainly don't think he was referring to evolution, which wasn't a Jewish-held belief anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible's truths are theological truths. They are set in the best "science" of the day. That science and cosmology are wrong.

The Bible's truths contain some scientific "nuggets" that are written in There in seed form; meant to be clarified as science advances. This makes the Bible a Living Book --- a Book for all generations.

For example, this universe is expanding, just as the Bible says it is.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucas, if I jumped from the 20th floor of a building onto the sidewalk below, chances are I'm a dead man.

If Adam did it in Genesis 1, he would have enjoyed the ride down, then gone back up to do it again.

See my point?

1. There is no Adam in Genesis 1. When God creates humans in Genesis 1, he creates both men and women (both plural in the Hebrew). Adam only appears in the Genesis 2 creation story.

2. If Adam had jumped, he too would have been dead. Gravity was in place at the time, otherwise all the plants and water would have floated away.

Are you telling me current science can study the Creation, as God created it (i.e. pre-Fall)?

Absolutely, because "pre-Fall" is not very different from "post-Fall". IF you are reading Genesis 3 literally, then the consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience are very limited:
1. Farming becomes difficult due to weeds.
2. Snakes lose their limbs.
3. Humans hate snakes; snakes hate humans.
4. Childbirth becomes painful.

And that is IT. Period. Anything else and you are making things up that are not Biblical. What you now have is a man-made idea that is contradicted by God both in scripture and in His Creation. Hmm. Told by God in 2 places that you are wrong but you still stick to the idea. That can't be good.

 

[AV1611VET]

I certainly don't think he was referring to evolution, which wasn't a Jewish-held belief anyway.

Let me remind you that Timothy's father was Greek.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. There is no Adam in Genesis 1.

Okay, I'm stopping right here. I now know where the problem lies. I don't need to hear anymore.

Feel free to critique my posts as you deem necessary --- but we're done conversing with each other.

 

[lucaspa]

The Bible's truths contain some scientific "nuggets" that are written in There in seed form; meant to be clarified as science advances. This makes the Bible a Living Book --- a Book for all generations.

For example, this universe is expanding, just as the Bible says it is.

The reason the Bible is a book for all generations is the theological truths, not the scientific ones. The Bible is not a science book. It doesn't need to be. God left us His Creation to tell us how He created.

You seem to invent "nuggets" such as how much "pre-Fall" differed from "post-Fall". But in reality those are ad hoc hypotheses to keep God's Creation from telling you that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

I notice you didn't mention the verse that you think the Bible says the universe is expanding. I've done a search at www.blueletterbible.org on "universe expanding" and got no results. The same for "universe" and "expand"

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason the Bible is a book for all generations is the theological truths, not the scientific ones. The Bible is not a science book. It doesn't need to be. God left us His Creation to tell us how He created.

You seem to invent "nuggets" such as how much "pre-Fall" differed from "post-Fall". But in reality those are ad hoc hypotheses to keep God's Creation from telling you that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

I notice you didn't mention the verse that you think the Bible says the universe is expanding. I've done a search at www.blueletterbible.org on "universe expanding" and got no results. The same for "universe" and "expand"

Have a good day, Lucaspa ---

 

[lucaspa]

Okay, I'm stopping right here. I now know where the problem lies. I don't need to hear anymore.

Feel free to critique my posts as you deem necessary --- but we're done conversing with each other.

Wow, that was quick. Gave you a Biblical truth you don't like, didn't I? And one you can't contradict, because Adam isn't in Genesis 1. The Hebrew states what I said: men and women, both plural, were created together.

AV, you can't even listen to God in the Bible. Look, there's still a chance for you to come back to God. But you must listen to God, not put your human pride ahead of God.

And yes, I will continue to critique. Even if I can't bring you (a lost sheep) back, at least I can prevent you from leading others astray.

 

[lucaspa]

Have a good day, Lucaspa ---

You wouldn't even provide the verse?

 

[AV1611VET]

You wouldn't even provide the verse?

You mean pearls?

 

[Mallon]

Let me remind you that Timothy's father was Greek.

That still doesn't explain Paul's condemnation of Jewish myths and genealogies in Titus.

 

[lucaspa]

If your statement is true, would you please identify what the common ancestor is for all organisms?

No dissertations please, you should be able to answer the question in five words or less.


"The common ancestor is _______________"
~malaka~

That's what is known as a "strawman". The common ancestor is extinct. It was unicellular, soft bodied, and therefore left no fossils.

Now, I will give you a dissertation so that, hopefully, you will learn something. Scientists tried gene analysis to find the last common ancestor (LCA). In the process they discovered a new phenomenon -- lateral gene transfer. This means that unicellular organisms have DNA that is not in their genome but in things called "plasmids". Unicellular organisms transfer plasmids from one to another, and do so across species lines. That is, an E. coli bacteria will share a plasmid with a S. aureus bacteria. They can even share plasmids across "kingdom" lines in that a bacteria and archaea will exchange plasmids, or a bacteria and a eucharyote. Genes in plasmids are sometimes transferred to the genome and genes from the genome to plasmids.

So, when you get back to unicellular organisms, DNA comes not only from parent to offspring, but thru lateral gene transfer. This makes it impossible to use gene analysis from living species to find the LCA.

Of course, this doesn't mean there isn't a LCA, just that we can't find it.

 

[gluadys]

Lucas, if I jumped from the 20th floor of a building onto the sidewalk below, chances are I'm a dead man.

If Adam did it in Genesis 1, he would have enjoyed the ride down, then gone back up to do it again.

See my point?

No. Where does scripture say gravity was not in effect from at least Gen. 1:3 on? Or Gen. 1:1 if you take that as a separate creation event?

And if it was not in effect, Adam would not have "enjoyed the ride down" as there would be no "down" and nothing to attract him to the surface of the earth.