Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[ScottA]

Huh? The "other path" as you put it is simply the same path that you said could be a viable option:

They don't suggest that God didn't create the world, they suggest it happened a long time ago, as do most Christians in general.

1) Not a viable option, but rather the way of those who do not look to God, but lean rather on their own understanding.

2) They are serving two masters. It is one thing to acknowledge the amazing and skillful work of ungodly men, but quite another thing to join them in their godless pursuit. We are told to seek Him and subdue the earth, not seek the earth and subdue God.

 

[Michael]

I don't need to. He has already defined it.

As I see it, God already defined it within the very physics itself Scott. Therein lies all the evidence that we need in terms of guestimating (maybe not exact dates, but close enough) the age of various rocks, the age of the Earth, and the age of various (once living) forms of life.

The first few chapters of the book of Genesis can be "interpreted" in a variety of ways, but the physics of God's creation speaks for itself.

Only if one is faced with an internal conflict between "science" does "science" become a threat to any particular religious belief. Science has never however been a threat of any type to God. Quite the opposite. Science is simply the study of his creation.

 

[Michael]

1) Not a viable option, but rather the way of those who do not look to God, but lean rather on their own understanding.

2) They are serving two masters. It is one thing to acknowledge the amazing and skillful work of ungodly men, but quite another thing to join them in their godless pursuit. We are told to seek Him and subdue the earth, not seek the earth and subdue God.

Er, you seem to be in conflict with your own previous statements. You just told me that "both" (you didn't explain how by the way) viewpoints might be true.

If that's possible, and the Earth is ancient as the Catholics presume and that's "true" somehow according to you, how exactly are they "leading the flock astray" again with respect to a metaphorical interpretation of the book of Genesis, and a tendency to embrace science as it relates to areas of 'science'?

 

[ScottA]

Er, you seem to be in conflict with your own previous statements. You just told me that "both" (you didn't explain how by the way) viewpoints might be true.

If that's possible, and the Earth is ancient as the Catholics presume and that's "true" somehow according to you, how exactly are they "leading the flock astray" again with respect to a metaphorical interpretation of the book of Genesis, and a tendency to embrace science as it relates to areas of 'science'?

Sorry for the confusion. This is all very abstract. Within the context of God's creation, Yes, I meant to say "both" are accurate considerations of Time...because God is more than capable of sending out mixed signals. He has in fact confused all the worlds languages, created evil, changed the age of men, stopped the sun, caused His chosen nation to slumber, and kept the wool over our totally committed and born again of the spirit of God eyes. But do not misunderstand, if we can accept the rain falling on the good AND on the evil, then we should not be confounded by His amazing sting laid out for those who hate Him.

 

[Michael]

Yet Catholics do not hate God, nor is physics something that Christ himself put a lot of time and effort into explaining while walking the planet.

It seems to me that the signals are written in the physics, in the rocks, in the creation itself.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are living in it.

Then show it to me.

 

[ScottA]

Yet Catholics do not hate God, nor is physics something that Christ himself put a lot of time and effort into explaining while walking the planet.

It seems to me that the signals are written in the physics, in the rocks, in the creation itself.

Why would you think that, is there any precedence for that from God? If He had said, study the earth instead of subdue it, maybe. But He didn't.

Which, puts the Catholic leaders out in left field. But I am not saying I hate them, I am just commenting on their error, because it came up, because they were used as a trump card as to whether it is better to look to God or to His creation, for answers.

 

[ScottA]

Then show it to me.

No. Look around you.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. Look around you.

I did. No evidence for your claims. Guess you weren't telling me the truth.

 

[Michael]

Why would you think that, is there any precedence for that from God? If He had said, study the earth instead of subdue it, maybe. But He didn't.

He didn't say "Thou shalt interpret the book of Genesis literally" either.

Which, puts the Catholic leaders out in left field. But I am not saying I hate them, I am just commenting on their error, because it came up, because they were used as a trump card as to whether it is better to look to God or to His creation, for answers.

How are they out in left field any further than someone that *assumes* that the book of Genesis *must* be interpreted literally? At least the Catholic position on the age of the Earth is consistent with physics and other external reference points, it's not based *exclusively* upon the opinions of the Pope or a single source.

 

[dad]

No it wouldn't.

Sharks and dolphins look alike. They have similar streamlined shapes, but their biology indicates very different evolutionary paths.

maybe they were different kins of fish....or sea creatures might be a better word for science. How would you know any different? Conversely, where we had rapid evolution from a kind...such as, say, several types of lions, you would not know where the 3volving started or stopped. Etc.

Likewise, possums and squirrels look like, but they are still very different.

how would youknowifthat was rapid evolving in the different former nature, or old age volving in a same state past? You guys are lost.

In both cases, they have evolved to look similar because they both face the same sorts of challenges.

Challenges of a new nature and world not being least among them.

 

[ScottA]

He didn't say "Thou shalt interpret the book of Genesis literally" either.



How are they out in left field any further than someone that *assumes* that the book of Genesis *must* be interpreted literally? At least the Catholic position on the age of the Earth is consistent with physics and other external reference points, it's not based *exclusively* upon the opinions of the Pope or a single source.

This is really simple...you either take God at His word, or you do not.

 

[Doveaman]

Any interpretation of the bible must also agree with reality.

Any interpretation of reality must also agree with the bible.

 

[Kylie]

In fact, the dolphin's fin has more in common with the human arm than it does with anything found on the shark.

So why would God use the same bones for humans and dolphins, but use something different for a shark fin that looks so much like a dolphin fin from the outside? That is something that creationists can't seem to tackle.

One of the many questions that has no answer from a creationist viewpoint, but a very easy answer from an evolutionary viewpoint.

 

[Kylie]

Because God's plan is to eliminate evil.

But I don't get your logic. Studying while in prison may better the person, but it is no promise of a dismissed sentence.

Considering that he is God, surely his plan would be something like, "Snap fingers and eliminate evil."

 

[Kylie]

maybe they were different kins of fish....or sea creatures might be a better word for science. How would you know any different?

Because there are traits that show signs of having adapted from previous features, rather than the custom built traits we would expect to see. Such as the bones in a dolphin's flipper being the same as the bones in a humans arm. The exact shape may be different, but the overall plan is the same.

Conversely, where we had rapid evolution from a kind...such as, say, several types of lions, you would not know where the 3volving started or stopped. Etc.

But then why would they show all the signs of having evolved from a common ancestor?

how would youknowifthat was rapid evolving in the different former nature, or old age volving in a same state past? You guys are lost.

Before you starting imposing your different state past idea as a solution, you must first demonstrate that it actually happened.

Challenges of a new nature and world not being least among them.

Given that you've never been able to give us any information about how the different state past was different, how can you make any comment on the differences between DSP and present state challenges?

 

[Kylie]

Any interpretation of reality must also agree with the bible.

This seems to be making the assumption that the Bible must agree with reality. This is far from certain.

I would say that everything, no matter what, must agree with reality. Reality must be the final and ultimate measure of accuracy, as reality is the only thing that we can demonstrate exists.

 

[Doveaman]

And to apply today's laws and constants to Genesis 1 will yield conflicting -- MUCH conflicting -- results.

What laws do you have in mind?

Gravity.

Many ancient giants would be crippled under the present force of gravity.

As was noted, most scientific laws apply throughout time. That's why tey are called laws.

So the few scientific laws that do not apply throughout time, what are they called?

 

[dad]

Because there are traits that show signs of having adapted from previous features, rather than the custom built traits we would expect to see. Such as the bones in a dolphin's flipper being the same as the bones in a humans arm. The exact shape may be different, but the overall plan is the same.

Great, so if it adapted it was from a kind. The transition was from kind to something evolved from the kind.

But then why would they show all the signs of having evolved from a common ancestor?

You just read signs wrong. Kinds were created with similar traits. God created fish, and they may have eyes...so do we..whooopee do.



Before you starting imposing your same state past idea as a solution, you must first demonstrate that it actually happened. Then and only then could you tslk about slow evolving in the past.

Given that you've never been able to give us any information about how the different state past was different, how can you make any comment on the differences between DSP and present state challenges?

You have not shown it was the same. Back at ya.

 

[Doveaman]

This seems to be making the assumption that the Bible must agree with reality. This is far from certain.

I would say that everything, no matter what, must agree with reality. Reality must be the final and ultimate measure of accuracy, as reality is the only thing that we can demonstrate exists.

I reject your reality in favor of biblical reality, the reality inspired by God.