Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Loudmouth]

Because none would have been generated.

Why not?

Wouldn't we see all groups of species in the earliest sediments if they were all created in the same week?

If the Earth was created just 6,000 years ago, shouldn't we find that all igneous rock found above fossils date to 6,000 years or less?

Have you seen my Apple Challenge?

Yes, and I wiped the floor with it. A recently created apple wouldn't have healed wounds from birds pecking at it or worms eating away at it, that is unless the apple was created by a deceiver.

 

[Reasoning]

Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

You'd have to excuse me that I am not impressed by quotes from an ancient book, however beautiful it is written.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd have to excuse me that I am not impressed by quotes from an ancient book, however beautiful it is written.

Then don't take literature in college.

You'll find all sorts of atheists there highly-impressed with the King James Bible.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then don't take literature in college.

You'll find all sorts of atheists there highly-impressed with the King James Bible.

They are also highly impressed with the Iliad, but they don't think it is a literal history.

 

[AV1611VET]

They are also highly impressed with the Iliad, but they don't think it is a literal history.

I understand that.

But they are impressed just the same.

I have a feeling Mr. Reasoning's brand of reasoning wouldn't go far in an advanced literature class.

 

[ScottA]

If you can't prove your claim, then there is nothing to disprove.

It is not a "claim." Call it what you want, do with it what you want.

Show us this evidence, and how it supports your claims.

You can't point to a shred of this physical evidence. It isn't me who has the problem.

That isn't evidence. Evidence is something that you can demonstrate.

What you have are unevidenced beliefs. You have faith, not evidence.

If someone said that the evidence for leprechauns is leprechaun evidence, you would probably laugh at them. I don't see why I should take spiritual evidence any more seriously than leprechaun evidence.

I have pointed to a world of physical evidence (the world), and also to spiritual evidence. Don't blame me because you don't know what you are looking at.

You definition of demonstrating evidence is inadequate. That may (for the umptheenth time) work in you little world...but...HELLO!...we are NOT talking about your little world.

No, what I have is "knowledge"...that your kind of evidence will not convey, and "belief" and "faith" have nothing to do with it. HELLO! How many times do I have to tell you that?!

 

[Astrophile]

You are thinking of the "square- cube" law?

Doveaman's original link http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_dinosaurs01.htm was to an article by Ted Holden in The Anomalist entitled 'Dinosaurs and the Gravity Problem'. The article presents some weird idea about the Earth's gravity being less in the past, when there were giant dinosaurs and pterosaurs; it is not about human giants.

 

[ScottA]

I hope you do too. So you believe in the spaghetti monster, elfs, trolls and peter pan? Of course not, no reason too, because there is no indication for the existence of these.. Well, it's the same with God.

I would say, No, it's apples and oranges.

But then, you would probably not get that...because apples and oranges are both physical in nature...so you would just think that God is no different. Except, that He is...and the idea that He can be demoed like another piece of fruit...is just ridiculous.

So...why would anyone in their right mind...consider them the "same?"

 

[JackRT]

Doveaman's original link http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_dinosaurs01.htm was to an article by Ted Holden in The Anomalist entitled 'Dinosaurs and the Gravity Problem'. The article presents some weird idea about the Earth's gravity being less in the past, when there were giant dinosaurs and pterosaurs; it is not about human giants.

Thank you. What evidence do they present about earth's gravity being different in the past? Are they even aware of all the other consequences of that hypothesis?

 

[AV1611VET]

So...why would anyone in their right mind...consider them the "same?"

Perhaps Mr. Reasoning could show us one martyr for the FSM?

Or maybe he could show us where IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins pertains to elfs?

Or maybe he could show us where UNDER GOD in our Pledge pertains to Peter Pan?

Or maybe ...

 

[Reasoning]

Then don't take literature in college.
You'll find all sorts of atheists there highly-impressed with the King James Bible.

I meant -not- impressed in the sense of it being literal truth. Of course literature is important and impressive sometimes. I would be fully in favor of reading and teaching the bible in literature class. But then also the Koran, and some other important holy books. There is nothing wrong with presenting the story of those books, as long as they just stay away from science class, or pretending they are actual truth.

I would say, No, it's apples and oranges.
But then, you would probably not get that...because apples and oranges are both physical in nature...so you would just think that God is no different. Except, that He is...and the idea that He can be demoed like another piece of fruit...is just ridiculous.
So...why would anyone in their right mind...consider them the "same?"

Well, you say He is, but that's not going to be good enough. If I say that elfs exist, you would demand proof before you belief this too, wouldn't you? The burden of proof is the same in all cases.

Perhaps Mr. Reasoning could show us one martyr for the FSM?
Or maybe he could show us where IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins pertains to elfs?
Or maybe he could show us where UNDER GOD in our Pledge pertains to Peter Pan?
Or maybe ...

I'm not saying that Christian faith didn't have an impact on those things. However I would be in favor of removing those references to religion from any uniform and universal thing, especially government related, I also have to recognize that there are certain traditions. That does not change that the evidence for elfs and trolls is just as compelling as for God: non existent.

 

[ScottA]

Well, you say He is, but that's not going to be good enough. If I say that elfs exist, you would demand proof before you belief this too, wouldn't you? The burden of proof is the same in all cases.

But that is not the case. We who "know" God are not making claims, though they are taken as such. It is information from beyond the common horizon, which is completely optional to believe. We may like to be convincing, to see you benefit from the news. It's called sharing (the good news). Please take it or leave it.

On the contrary, if you said that elves exist, and throughout all the history of the world there were similar witnesses to your information given in great detail that go well beyond what people are known to do for other human passions...then I should reasonably consider that you have a case, even if I do not believe it. Furthermore, if I demanded physical proof, and you could not produce what is understood to be "unseen" or at least extremely rare and limited to what has been explained to you as "chosen"...then I should not expect anything more than what has been described. If your position were at all reasonable, all rare sightings of even worldly creatures would be considered fantasy to those who had never had the experience...and all science [LOL] that is over the head of the common person, if the proof is beyond their understanding, should therefore be considered witchcraft. Should every scientific claim be provable at an elementary level? That whole line of thinking, is absolutely ridiculous. If the situation were indeed reversed, the scientific community would never considered it to even be legitimate. Your position...is not even legitimate, by your own standard.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd have to excuse me that I am not impressed by quotes from an ancient book, however beautiful it is written.

Then don't take literature in college.

You'll find all sorts of atheists there highly-impressed with the King James Bible.

I meant impressed in the sense of it being literal truth.

So IOW, you're impressed, as long as it isn't true?

 

[dad]

Thank you. What evidence do they present about earth's gravity being different in the past? Are they even aware of all the other consequences of that hypothesis?

Name a few.

 

[JackRT]

Name a few.

OK
--- ability of the earth to retain its atmosphere
--- the formation of the moon
--- distance of the earth and sun
--- the habitability of the earth

 

[joshua 1 9]

The "cause" is usually blamed on the person not having enough faith. Rubbish. Oh yeah, someone caught the flu because they didn't have faith in God or got cancer because of lack of faith. Or demons. We aren't in the middle ages anymore. Or, as we've figured out, in some cases the cause is a virus or an imbalance of brain chemicals. But I don't expect those who reject science to know that.

The definition of faith gets twisted. To me, faith means to believe that God is with us even in the difficult times.

The problem is when stress compromises the immunity system. People who have faith, trust & believe in God can have a stronger immunity system because they have less stress to compromise their bodies natural defenses.

http://adrenalfatiguesolution.com/stress-immune-system/

 

[ScottA]

And since there are always going to be more people turning up, then I guess God's going to be waiting forever.

No, the story of the history of the world (His story), is a finished work. From within the pages of the story, it simply goes from page to page unto the end.

Just because something has been told to you doesn't make it a fact. And trying to fit your experiences into something that you have arbitrarily decided is true is at best fallacious reasoning and at worst arrogance in the extreme.

If I (and countless others down through all of recorded history) have seen over the common horizon and do not believe, but "know" something that should be shared...should we not share it?

Regardless, you are not alone in your skepticism. If you hadn't noticed, just as God's own people killed the prophets that were sent to them, and are recorded with the same come-backs as you now give, every step of the way along their history, only to be corrected and redirected onto the next phase of revelation...there are still people right here on the forum and all over the world, who make the same arguments continually while even claiming to be Christians. And yet...it is the "facts" that have and will prevail. I am good with that...but you, you are quite perfectly aligned with the naysayers, who could not bear the news, and therefore rejected it.

The question is...will you continue to fall into the same pattern as those who have gone before, or will you be open to seeing beyond the common horizon?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Oh, okay, so God is evil?

The word should perhaps be translated calamity. In the NIV the verse is translated: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, the story of the history of the world (His story), is a finished work. From within the pages of the story, it simply goes from page to page unto the end.

Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. He knows the End from the Beginning. Of course you can not have an End without a Beginning and you cannot have a Beginning without an End.

 

[Astrophile]

Thank you. What evidence do they present about earth's gravity being different in the past? Are they even aware of all the other consequences of that hypothesis?

The author argues that a sauropod with a weight of 70,000 lb (nearly 32 tonnes) would not be able to lift its body from the ground, i.e. to stand up from a recumbent position, nor would its heart be able to pump blood up its long neck to its brain.

He also argues that there were pterosaurs weighing up to 350 lb (160 kg) and birds of prey like the Argentinian teratorn, which weighed 170-200 lb (77-90 kg), whereas the largest living flying creatures weigh only about 30 lb (14 kg).

He also argues that tyrannosaurs weighed more than modern elephants, and that any fall would inflict fatal injuries; this appears to contradict the hypothesis that tyrannosaurs actively attacked living prey. Also mammoths were as large as elephants, but Pleistocene art shows them galloping. Finally, the Utahraptor weighed 1500 lb (680 kg) and ran on the balls of its feet or on its toes.

Not being a biologist, I don't know what to make of Holden's supposed facts; I wouldn't put much trust in them.

His hypothesis is that before the flood the Earth orbited a small, cool stellar body or a binary star, whose gravitational attraction pulled the Earth into an egg shape. This system was eventually captured by the Sun, but the small star or stars have survived as Jupiter and Saturn. This hypothesis seems to me to be utterly crazy; it is totally inconsistent with everything we know about the solar system.