Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[AV1611VET]

In other words, saying that you're on the side of the majority, and therefore correct, is not exactly a gloating issue biblically.

Scientists shouldn't be harping on "majority of ..." or "consensus of opinion."

Not when a handful of unqualified scientists make a major change [to the solar system] behind closed doors.

 

[Michael]

A lot of the Bible is full of the majority being wrong.

That really isn't the issue in question or the source of our debate. What dad said was this:

It is straight. Some believe the simple and obvious truth and record and others bust their head trying to be more clever than God.

While it's possible that the majority may be wrong, YEC is definitely not a "simple and obvious truth". It's not even "true" to begin with according to science, and it's not "obvious" to most Christians either.

Essentially he's trying to take the "spiritual high ground" by lumping his literal interpretation of Genesis into the concept of what it means to be a "Christian". Most "Christians" don't lump them together in the first place!

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

That really isn't the issue in question or the source of our debate. What dad said was this:



While it's possible that the majority may be wrong, YEC is definitely not a "simple and obvious truth". It's not even "true" to begin with according to science, and it's not "obvious" to most Christians either.

Essentially he's trying to take the "spiritual high ground" by lumping his literal interpretation into the concept of what it means to be a "Christian". Most "Christians" don't lump them together in the first place!

Where are you getting this majority opinion from? The official stances of major churches? Christians you've spoken to? In my experience, most Christians do believe in a literal translation of Genesis 1, and a young earth. The minority I've been exposed to is the old-earth supporters. And I haven't met anyone who agrees with the pope on any statement.

 

[dad]

You keep ignoring the fact that we are debating *when*, not *if*, and the when part is an "interpretation".



Being "saved" has nothing to do with believing in an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old as evidenced by the fact that most Christians reject that idea entirely.



You mean besides those ice core samples I cited earlier that show 800,000 years worth of seasonal snowfall? Evidence it was different?



It's not like you have any evidence to the contrary however. Big zero for you too.



Been there, done that. You won't find any red letter parts of the Bible claiming that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Jesus didn't say anything like that, and your literal interpretation of Genesis flies directly in the face of Christ's own use of metaphor during his lifetime and his teachings.



I have zero evidence to support the idea that the laws of physics ever changed, past present or future. Whatever laws apply now most likely applied since the universe began.



I know they apply to "materials" like atoms and photons.



The only "gong" is the fact that your beliefs are the minority position even within "Christianity", and they are at odds with reality and physics. The Pope has no such problems yet he also loves and reveres Jesus.

No you don't know atoms apply to spirits. Nor can you prove God is a liar in claiming noah and Adam lived.

 

[dad]

That really isn't the issue in question or the source of our debate. What dad said was this:



While it's possible that the majority may be wrong, YEC is definitely not a "simple and obvious truth". It's not even "true" to begin with according to science, and it's not "obvious" to most Christians either.

Essentially he's trying to take the "spiritual high ground" by lumping his literal interpretation of Genesis into the concept of what it means to be a "Christian". Most "Christians" don't lump them together in the first place!

Jesus neither created the world or died on the tree because of nominal believers voting.

 

[dad]

If it was "straight" as you claim, you wouldn't be in the minority even among fellow "Christians". It's not God that is being debated, it's your *personal interpretation* of a couple of paragraphs that are being debated.

Pretending creation was the big bang is lukewarm rubbish.

 

[Colter]

No, not on much. Religion is good at confessing the errors of others but not so much it's own.

The Bible wasn't written by historians or scientist, it was written by many holy men with layers of contending bias.

 

[Michael]

Pretending creation was the big bang is lukewarm rubbish.

Actually dad, I don't even personally make such an assumption about a "big bang", but I see ample evidence that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. I see ice core samples that go back 800,000 years, and radiometric dating evidence that it's closer to 4.6 billion years old.

 

[Michael]

No you don't know atoms apply to spirits.

I never claimed otherwise actually. The Earth however is composed of atoms.

Nor can you prove God is a liar in claiming noah and Adam lived.

Why do you keep debating *if* rather than *when* with me personally? I'd understand your attitude if you were conversing with an atheist, but you keep ignoring the fact that I am a Christian, and like most Christians I simply interpret Genesis metaphorically, not *literally*, particularly and specifically as it relates to the age of the Earth. Why can't you deal with the *when* question specifically?

 

[bhsmte]

Where are you getting this majority opinion from? The official stances of major churches?
Christians you've spoken to? In my experience, most Christians do believe in a literal translation of Genesis 1, and a young earth. The minority I've been exposed to is the old-earth supporters. And I haven't met anyone who agrees with the pope on any statement.

Wrong, the majority of christians agree with evolution and an old earth. Sorry.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Wrong, the majority of christians agree with evolution and an old earth. Sorry.

How do you know? None that I've met believe that.

 

[bhsmte]

How do you know? None that I've met believe that.

If i was not on my phone, i would link you to several studies that support whatni stated, and have been posted on this site numerous times.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

If i was not on my phone, i would link you to several studies that support whatni stated, and have been posted on this site numerous times.

Everything I have ever seen polls that half the country discards evolution for creation. That's half the country, not just half of christians.

 

[JackRT]

Everything I have ever seen polls that half the country discards evolution for creation. That's half the country, not just half of christians.

The USA is the only Christian nation that I am aware of that has a sizeable minority that are young earth creationists. The scientific community in the USA probably has a Christian majority but it overwhelmingly accepts evolution.

“Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.”--- Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). *http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163

Response:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent. Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.
One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

 

[AV1611VET]

The scientific community in the USA probably has a Christian majority but is overwhelmingly accepts evolution.

That's because the Bible was kicked out of school.

Also, the Pope has a lot to do with that [statistic] as well.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

The USA is the only Christian nation that I am aware of that has a sizeable minority that are young earth creationists. The scientific community in the USA probably has a Christian majority but is overwhelmingly accepts evolution.

It hasn't really withstood that many years of questioning though. It's only really been an idea for maybe 150 years. And we may feel we've reached a full-on scientific age, but we are probably still only scratching the surface. We are continually humbled in scientific research. Tests that used to be accurate 10 years ago are now archaic. Who knows what 50 years down the road will look like.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Doubt they're going to find the world is only 6k odd years old or so. Sorry did I say doubt? I meant to say HELL NO!

Right. Because science, although it has encountered drastic changes throughout time, and had to deal with earth-shattering discoveries that completely changed its entire foundation, is totally 100% infallible now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doubt they're going to find the world is only 6k odd years old or so.

No problem.

They can't even find evidence of two million Jews living in the desert for forty years -- even with their itinerary written out in plain English (q.v. the book of Numbers).

 

[AV1611VET]

Right. Because science, although it has encountered drastic changes throughout time, and had to deal with earth-shattering discoveries that completely changed its entire foundation, is totally 100% infallible now.

Science is myopic.

 

[ScottA]

Rationale thinking, evidence, critical thinking, study, scientific process, and just plain old logic. That's my authority.

With all that authority, would you have a court jester be judge over a trial for your life sentence? [rhetorical] Sounds like you already have. Some rationale, good thinking, logical. Good luck with that.