Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Subduction Zone]

No. Look at the op. If anyone were to ask you what the bible or God meant...they should seek help.

The OP made quite a few errors. One of them was to more than once to reinterpret the Bible in light of what we now know from science. On its own the Bible is terribly inaccurate when it comes to science.

 

[Smidlee]

I love all of the excuses and rationalizations for an idea that is not clearly stated in the Bible.
But have it your way. All that means is that your interpretations of the Bible have been shown to be wrong by the fact that life evolved. You can use science to help you translate the Bible but so far no one that I know of has been able to use the Bible to do science.

People who believes life evolved think life can be explain away mechanically but no one can prove we got that our reasoning by mechanical means. Evolution is based on the religious idea of the principle of continuity. Since the Bible deals with people and the more important things in life that can't be explained by mechanics it is much greater than any science book. People love science because it much easily to deal with machines than to deal with people.
The Word of God doesn't deal with science but the scientist which all science is upon. What is greater science or the scientist where all science comes from?

Again evolutionist believes an ape can eventually become a scientist and argue to others there is no god.

 

[Edmond Smith]

Notice that it is written by men.

Notice, the keyboard you used, is the instrument for which you and I are placing words on to the computer screen. (I'm over simplifying a bit, didn't think you wanted to go into all the digital stuff that's happening also).

If God let you and I be smart enough to type.
and if God is who He says He is. Don't you think that He could easily told men what to write and use them as the instruments to put His Word to Paper.

Also Smidee...We don't know what language God speaks, except that He knows all languages. Because he created all languages.

 

[durangodawood]

....Evolution is the belief that an ape can eventually become a scientist.

If you think thats "evolution", then of course you reject it.
I reject that too!

I suspect that if you know what evolution was really about, you'd believe in it right away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People who believes life evolved think life can be explain away mechanically but no one can prove we got that our reasoning by mechanical means. Evolution is based on the religious idea of the principle of continuity. Since the Bible deals with people and the more important things in life that can't be explained by mechanics it is much greater than any science book. People love science because it much easily to deal with machines than to deal with people.
The Word of God doesn't deal with science but the scientist which all science is upon. What is greater science or the scientist where all science comes from?

Again evolutionist believes an ape can eventually become a scientist and argue to others there is no god.

Why do you think that our reasoning is special? We merely have larger better brains than other apes. And the Bible explains noting when it comes to science. It merely makes statements, some of them correct, some of them incorrect.

Also evolution is not based upon any religious ideas.When you try to attack evolution by incorrectly calling it a religious belief when it is based purely upon scientific evidence you also denigrate all religions, your own included by implying that religious beliefs are inferior. It is not a wise way to argue against the the theory

 

[Smidlee]

Why do you think that our reasoning is special? We merely have larger better brains than other apes. And the Bible explains noting when it comes to science. It merely makes statements, some of them correct, some of them incorrect.

Also evolution is not based upon any religious ideas.When you try to attack evolution by incorrectly calling it a religious belief when it is based purely upon scientific evidence you also denigrate all religions, your own included by implying that religious beliefs are inferior. It is not a wise way to argue against the the theory

You got shot yourself in the foot. If human reasoning isn't special then there is no reason for it to determine what is true no more than an ape. That includes that evolution is true. I claimed evolution is based on a religious belief and it is.

 

[HitchSlap]

Notice, the keyboard you used, is the instrument for which you and I are placing words on to the computer screen. (I'm over simplifying a bit, didn't think you wanted to go into all the digital stuff that's happening also).

If God let you and I be smart enough to type.
and if God is who He says He is. Don't you think that He could easily told men what to write and use them as the instruments to put His Word to Paper.

Also Smidee...We don't know what language God speaks, except that He knows all languages. Because he created all languages.

According to one of your ilk here on CF, God speaks King James English.

 

[Edmond Smith]

According to one of your ilk here on CF, God speaks King James English.

LOL...Well, it is a language, Old English is that is...especially the old English, sounds much different than how we speak to day.
But I know where your going with that...LOL.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You got shot yourself in the foot. If human reasoning isn't special then there is no reason for it to determine what is true no more than an ape. That includes that evolution is true. I claimed evolution is based on a religious belief and it is.

Sorry but you shot yourself in the foot by starting with a non sequitur. Human reasoning is not all that special. It is merely better than that of other apes. Please don't forget that you are an ape too.

And you once again insulted all religions, your own included, by trying to insult the theory of evolution by calling it a religion. All that shows is that you have no understanding of the theory that you disagree with. That almost guarantees that you will lose any debate about the theory of evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

Sorry but you shot yourself in the foot by starting with a non sequitur. Human reasoning is not all that special. It is merely better than that of other apes. Please don't forget that you are an ape too.

And you once again insulted all religions, your own included, by trying to insult the theory of evolution by calling it a religion. All that shows is that you have no understanding of the theory that you disagree with. That almost guarantees that you will lose any debate about the theory of evolution.

Nope I'm not an ape. I repeat again evolution is based on the religious idea the principle of continuity. You have refuted evolution since it's a product of human reasoning which you believe came existence purely by natural causes.

 

[Edmond Smith]

Sorry but you shot yourself in the foot by starting with a non sequitur. Human reasoning is not all that special. It is merely better than that of other apes. Please don't forget that you are an ape too.

And you once again insulted all religions, your own included, by trying to insult the theory of evolution by calling it a religion. All that shows is that you have no understanding of the theory that you disagree with. That almost guarantees that you will lose any debate about the theory of evolution.

Couple of questions? Are you absolutely sure evolution is a fact and would you tell others about it?
How interested are you in evolution?
Finally, how active are you in trying to convince others that evolution is a fact?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope I'm not an ape. I repeat again evolution is based on the religious idea the principle of continuity. You have refuted evolution since it's a product of human reasoning which you believe came existence purely by natural causes.

Of course you are an ape. Don't be silly. You can no more claim that you are not an ape than you can claim that you are not a mammal or a vertebrate.

All you are doing now is repeating rather ignorant errors. When you don't understand the proper thing to do is to ask questions. Not to tell the whole world that you are ignorant and refuse to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Couple of questions? Are you absolutely sure evolution is a fact and would you tell others about it?
How interested are you in evolution?
Finally, how active are you in trying to convince others that evolution is a fact?

Yes, I am absolutely sure that evolution is a fact since it is demonstrably true. Something that you cannot say for your own beliefs. I am still rather interested in the science and of course try to learn more every day. Lastly I spend some time each day trying to help the ignorant.

And now a couple of questions for you: How much science education do you have? Do you believe the Noah's Ark story, that the whole world was drowned by water only a very short time ago?

 

[Smidlee]

Of course you are an ape. Don't be silly. You can no more claim that you are not an ape than you can claim that you are not a mammal or a vertebrate.

All you are doing now is repeating rather ignorant errors. When you don't understand the proper thing to do is to ask questions. Not to tell the whole world that you are ignorant and refuse to learn.

I bet a child can tell the difference between an ape and a human. Our legal system makes a huge difference between an ape and human. (We wouldn't arrest an ape for rape or murder.) You seem to saw off the limb you were standing on. If human reasoning isn't special there is no reason believe we can know truth no more than an ape.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans-arent-apes-2012.html

 

[joshua 1 9]

So far, every time we check the past, things worked just as they do now.

There is always a slight variation. Now only exists in a moment of time and that moment can never be perfectly repeated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I bet a child can tell the difference between an ape and a human. Our legal system makes a huge difference between an ape and human. (We wouldn't arrest an ape for rape or murder.) You seem to saw off the limb you were standing on. If human reasoning isn't special there is no reason believe we can know truth no more than an ape.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans-arent-apes-2012.html

Your error is that you are using a false test. Of course a child could tell the difference between humans and other apes. And as to reason, you are making a typical creationist type of all or nothing error. You seem to think that because we only know more than apes that we still cannot know whether some actions are right or wrong. We have a much stronger ability to think and to rationalize than other apes, but if you think that apes do not have a sense of right and wrong then you are terribly ignorant about them too.

And you do not understand why the writer of that article did not like calling himself an ape. He agrees with me that you are descended from apes. But he uses the incorrect English definition of an ape rather than a consistent biological definition of ape. It is not all that bright to use an article for support that agrees with your foe. His argument is only one based on semantic and does not dispute the fact that we have a common ancestor with other apes.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes, I am absolutely sure that evolution is a fact since it is demonstrably true.

Even though the theory is in a state of flux and constant change. That is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel if you say the theory is true because we constantly change the theory so it lines up with the current evidence that we have. As Collins says most everything we thought we knew about DNA ten years ago has not been shown not to be accurate or true: "The discoveries of the past decade, little known to most of the public, have completely overturned much of what use to be taught in High School Biology." So your theory is doomed to fail and be replaced again and again. Even now there is a wide range of difference of opinions among the leading experts. Look at Meyer and Gould, both Harvard professors and yet they did not agree on some of the basic fundamentals of the theory. So even if you agree in principle you still have to work out the details.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even though the theory is in a state of flux and constant change. That is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel if you say the theory is true because we constantly change the theory so it lines up with the current evidence that we have. As Collins says most everything we thought we knew about DNA ten years ago has not been shown not to be accurate or true: "The discoveries of the past decade, little known to most of the public, have completely overturned much of what use to be taught in High School Biology." So your theory is doomed to fail and be replaced again and again. Even now there is a wide range of difference of opinions among the leading experts. Look at Meyer and Gould, both Harvard professors and yet they did not agree on some of the basic fundamentals of the theory. So even if you agree in principle you still have to work out the details.

Hardly, yes the theory is always in a bit of a stage of flux, but that applies to all complex scientific theories. But if you look at those changes over the years they keep getting smaller and smaller and finer and finer as we get closer to how life actually evolved. There is no scientific evidence that refutes the theory and worse yet for your beliefs there is no scientific evidence at all for creationism or ID (though if you understood scientific evidence you would understand that is the fault of creationists and ID supporters).

The only correct point in your post was that scientists still have to work out the details. That in now way implies a future failure of the theory. Each new discover to date simply has made the theory stronger.

 

[TheBear]

The sun was created after plants.

What kind of plants survive in -455 degrees Fahrenheit, and no photosynthesis?

 

[dad]

What kind of plants survive in -455 degrees Fahrenheit, and no photosynthesis?

The kind in your overactive imagination...why?