Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[AV1611VET]

What? Seriously? Are you really trying to say that mans sin messed up the whole universe? Hahahaha

Yessireee.

Also, if God is Omni everything, he created us so we would mess up, knew we would mess up, constructed and world where we had to mess up and then tells us we are doing it wrong? That is a hellish contradiction at play.

I agree with your conclusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

So everything in the bible is correct and literal?

The Bible is to be taken literally, except ... just like anything else ... the places where It uses figures of speech & allegory.

 

[AV1611VET]

So if he created us to be perfect and we're not ...

Whose fault is that? His or ours?

If Ford creates the perfect car, and it crashes because the driver went through a STOP sign, who's to blame?

God created the perfect couple ... Adam & Eve ... showed them the STOP sign; and what did they do?

Drove through it.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Evolution has stood every challenge over 150 years and only gotten stronger, especially with the discovery of DNA.

Noted Christian, physician, geneticist and former head of the human genome project, speaks of how powerful the evidence is for evolution:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-part-2

 

[Hoghead1]

You raised some important issues, Dad. First, who wrote the Bible? Divinely inspired or not, it carries human fingerprints all over. Meaning? God did not write Scripture in Heaven and then drop it down on our heads, on a sliver platter. Fallible humans wrote it and also decided what is Bible and what not. I realize that many hold with the notion of an inerrant Scripture. However, this is but a human-made, possibly fallible theory about how God may have been related to the writing of Scripture. Like any theory, it deserves to be tested out. Therefore, when we come to a serious study of the Bible, we should come with an open mind. We shod not blindly assume that it is all inerrant. We should take an attitude of : Maybe so, maybe not. Let us see. Know, I submit when the inerrancy theory is tested out, it does not hold waster. For one thing, there are too many contradictions in Scripture. A prime example is the Genesis account of creation. Now, I should say "accounts," as what is presented here is two contradictory chronologies written by tow different authors at tow different times in history. And as I said, what is Scripture and what not has always been a topic of debate. Jerome fist though the bible should be translated from the Hebrew, as this was the original language. Then he found this difficult and so switched to the Septuagint. Then had second thoughts on that. Then, in the end, went on the Septuagint. Then Luther came along and said that the Book of Ester should be thrown in the Danube River and that James was a "straw Epistle," which he relegated to the appendix of his translation of the Bible. So, does the Apocrypha belong in the Bible or not? What about Ester and James? you apparently brought up about unfulfilled prophecies. It is quite clear that Paul believed in an immanent end of the world and Second Coming. I also find that to be the case with the Book of Revelations.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Evolution has stood every challenge over 150 years and only gotten stronger, especially with the discovery of DNA.

Noted Christian, physician, geneticist and former head of the human genome project, speaks of how powerful the evidence is for evolution:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-part-2

No. It hasn't.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

https://www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=33778

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html

http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, for that matter, how well have the Bible withstood many years of questioning? Given there are over 100 major contradictions to be found in it, I would say not very well. Yes, it still has a place of honor, but the notion of an inerrant Scripter went out the window long ago in serious biblical studies. Also, figures on what scientists do or not believe in are often very inaccurate and contradictory.
Furthermore, I would like to know where the idea came from that the Bible was "kicked out" of the school system? When was the Bible ever in the public school system? Except for religious schools, I know of no public school that ever taught anything at all about the Bible. Prayers, yes. Biblical studies, no.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Well, for that matter, how well have the Bible withstood many years of questioning? Given there are over 100 major contradictions to be found in it, I would say not very well. Yes, it still has a place of honor, but the notion of an inerrant Scripter went out the window long ago in serious biblical studies. Also, figures on what scientists do or not believe in are often very inaccurate and contradictory.
Furthermore, I would like to know where the idea came from that the Bible was "kicked out" of the school system? When was the Bible ever in the public school system? Except for religious schools, I know of no public school that ever taught anything at all about the Bible. Prayers, yes. Biblical studies, no.

I know of public schools now that teach old and new testament. So, besides the fact that there are obvious problems with evolution, what are the 100 biblical contradictions you spoke of?

 

[Gene2memE]

No. It hasn't.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

https://www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=33778

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html

http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

Yes, it has. If it hadn't those articles you linked to wouldn't be hanging around on the back alleys of the internet, creationist websites, vanity publications and self-published journals. The scientific community would be publishing, in volume and in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals, about it. And, they would be developing a new theory to explain biological diversity on earth.

It has been said before, but it is worth repeating: Disproving the Theory of Evolution would in no way make creationism valid. The limitations of science - rooted as it is in evidentialism and methodological naturalism - make this outcome impossible. The only thing that will scientifically disprove the ToE is another naturalistic explanation of the evidence that does a better job at accounting for all the evidence about biology than the current explanation.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Yes, it has. If it hadn't those articles you linked to wouldn't be hanging around on the back alleys of the internet, creationist websites, vanity publications and self-published journals. The scientific community would be publishing, in volume and in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals, about it. And, they would be developing a new theory to explain biological diversity on earth.

It has been said before, but it is worth repeating: Disproving the Theory of Evolution would in no way make creationism valid. The limitations of science - rooted as it is in evidentialism and methodological naturalism - make this outcome impossible. The only thing that will scientifically disprove the ToE is another naturalistic explanation of the evidence that does a better job at accounting for all the evidence about biology than the current explanation.

I'm not saying it would make creation valid. I'm saying evolution is a theory full of holes.

 

[Hoghead1]

I say again that it is very difficult to get accurate figures on what scientists believe or Christians, etc. Much depends on the particular population you are sneaking of. For example, I am a liberal Christian and move mostly in liberal quarters. Here, belief in evolution is no problem. However, right down the road is a very conservative church that preaches against the sins of "evilution," as they call it. I am PCUSA and we are noted for being very liberal as well as being the largest Presbyterian denomination. However, there are more conservative Presbyterian churches. Anyhow, who cares bout the statistics? I went into graduate work in theology to get at the truth, not to win popularity contests with the laity.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Dad, where did you get the idea that Jesus is creating Adam? That is not at all said in Genesis. Also, those of us who hold that God works through evolution do not take the Genesis accounts literally. I find Genesis to consist of two conflicting accounts, to start with. The Protestant Reformation emphasized that the Bible is not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness, to start with. Hence, Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis, stated that God did not intend to teach us astronomy. God speaks in a way to accommodate himself to our intellects, and the biblical writers had limited intellects and could not understand science, so God largely talked "baby talk" to them. The flat earth, etc., are the biblical version of the stork story of how babies come. Also, Augustine, centuries earlier, in a work titled "Genesis in the Literal Sense<" argue that it is nonsense to take the Genesis account literally.

Even if God works through Evolution, DNA is still the "Language of God". The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Word of God. All things that are were created through Him. He is the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. We may not understand all there is to know. WE continue to learn and grow and we increase in wisdom and knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, for that matter, how well have the Bible withstood many years of questioning?

The word of God was questioned in the Garden.

Given there are over 100 major contradictions to be found in it, I would say not very well.

What about the similarities?

Virtually every Christian on earth believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

Does that mean anything to you?

If not, then don't tell me about contradictions, if you don't want to accept the non-contradictions.

 

[Colter]

Nope. It was writren by the spirit of God. Prove me wrong.

The spirit was confused, having Alzheimer's maybe while writing about the same event by two different authors centuries apart:

2 Samuel 24:1 - Anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah." So the king said to Joab, etc. etc.

1 Chron 21:1 - SATAN stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel. So David said to Joab, etc. etc.

That's one example of many inconsistencies due to evolving beliefs, editing and new administrations. Bible worshipers concocted a whole field of mental gymnastics used to rationalize away the obveous. It's called apologetics. But the original authors made no such claim as today's right wingers.

 

[Colter]

Name 2 subjigated prophesies?

All of the prophets that the preistly authorities had originally mistreated were adopted by later generations of redactors.

 

[SkyWriting]

It teaches at numerous points that the earth is flat:

So does NASA...so it must be flat.

 

[Colter]

Nope. It was writren by the spirit of God. Prove me wrong.

The Hebrews God concept has him flood the earth but powerless to stop iron chariots:


19And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

 

[SkyWriting]

Of course, it's a pretty moot point when it comes to the thread, because I don't think anyone could argue that the flood of noah is meant as a metaphor, and that definitely didn't happen.

One can be reasonably certain if witness accounts of the past are consistent or not consistent with physical evidence in the present, but one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence unless there is only one plausible explanation for that evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

2 Samuel 24:1 - Anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah." So the king said to Joab, etc. etc.

1 Chron 21:1 - SATAN stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel. So David said to Joab, etc. etc.

That's one example of many inconsistencies ...

Says who?

God allowed Satan to prompt David to number the people.

In so doing, He took the credit for it, but allowed Satan to do the urging.

Job makes this principle clear.

Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
Job 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
Job 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Who does the destruction here?

Satan does.

Ditto for Chapter 2.

But notice the last chapter of the book.

Job 42:10 And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.
Job 42:11 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.

Notice Who got the credit -- and made restitution?

That's one example of many inconsistencies due to evolving beliefs, editing and new administrations.

You might want to take another look at your critique, chief.

Job was written well before Samuel & Chronicles.

 

[Hoghead1]

Good point, Gene2. Many here naively assume that if evolution is proven wrong, that automatically means creation science is right. No way! Our intellectual life moves only forward, never backward. If we found something better than evolution, it would not be taking a step back to pre-evolutionary or anti-evolutionary sources. Creation science would still be out of the picture. It is often overlooked that a kind of creation science is what led to evolution. In the 19th century, many scientists believed that if 9ou went out into nature, you would all sorts of proofs for the Bible, especially the Flood. However, when the hard evidence came in, that was all shot down. Hence, creation science went out of the picture. As such, it will never come back in again. As I said, the growth of our knowledge does not work that way, does not go back steps.