Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Subduction Zone]

Notice how your article refer to "right and wrong" completely on a mechanical terms. Any pet owner already know this , that animals and inserts are governed by a certain code. Human reasoning goes beyond this which is why we have courts to determine who is at fault.
For example you can train a dog that it's bad to pee in the house. If you happen to forget to let the little dog out before taking off for a long period of time and the dog pees on the floor then he will hide in the corner since the dog only knows " it's a bad bad dog". It doesn't understand it's the owner fault and not it's own.

But that is just an example of an unnatural sense of right and wrong that has been instilled into the animal. Ask any expert on animal behavior and they will tell you how they have their own sense of right and wrong. The fact that their sense of right and wrong is different from yours does not mean that they do not have one.

all you have is story telling but no one know how to turn an ape into a scientist. Evolution is a product of human reasoning that scientist trying to explain away human reasoning . It's circular reasoning.

No, we have much more than that. All you have shown is your incredible ignorance of this branch of science. Please don't make false accusations against scientists that you cannot support. You should be asking questions so that you can learn, rather than by making claims that only demonstrate your ignorance.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It's not that everything happens exactly as it did before. It's that the evidence shows that all the laws we know were the same as far back as we can see.

I have heard otherwise. But that is fine if you want to believe that all the natural laws are consistent and unchangeable. Even though evolution itself represents change so you have a paradox to deal with.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I have heard otherwise. But that is fine if you want to believe that all the natural laws are consistent and unchangeable. Even though evolution itself represents change so you have a paradox to deal with.

Where's the paradox? What natural laws does evolution change?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's not that everything happens exactly as it did before. It's that the evidence shows that all the laws we know were the same as far back as we can see.

I have heard otherwise.

People tell lots of stories. But evidence counts. Would you like to see how we know this?

But that is fine if you want to believe that all the natural laws are consistent and unchangeable.

It's that "evidence" thing.

Even though evolution itself represents change so you have a paradox to deal with.

You've been misled. Evolution is about the way that allele frequencies in populations change. So a constant set of laws is necessary for evolution. It's also necessary for human survival, which is another reason we know it's true. If the laws of physics changed from time to time, we'd have all sorts of mishaps many of them fatal, as we would misjudge our actions in driving, walking, etc.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It must seem like cheating to creationists, who are locked into their new doctrine, unable to change. Meanwhile, science modifies theories as facts indicate a need for it. However, evolution has not been put into doubt if it turns out that neutral mutations have a role in phylogenesis. And so far, Darwin's four points are as solid as ever.

What were the 4 points?

If you don't know anything about his theory, what makes you think you can comment on it? No wonder you get defeated so often; you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Barbarian observes:
It's not that everything happens exactly as it did before. It's that the evidence shows that all the laws we know were the same as far back as we can see.



People tell lots of stories. But evidence counts. Would you like to see how we know this?



It's that "evidence" thing.



You've been misled. Evolution is about the way that allele frequencies in populations change. So a constant set of laws is necessary for evolution. It's also necessary for human survival, which is another reason we know it's true. If the laws of physics changed from time to time, we'd have all sorts of mishaps many of them fatal, as we would misjudge our actions in driving, walking, etc.

So are you talking about the micro world laws of physics or the macro world laws of physics?

 

[The Barbarian]

So are you talking about the micro world laws of physics or the macro world laws of physics?

I don't know of any physical constant that is different now, than it has been for billions of years. Which one do you think has changed?

 

[Gracchus]

To weigh in late on the question: Does Science Agree With the Bible?

No!

 

[bhsmte]

To weigh in late on the question: Does Science Agree With the Bible?

No!

Agree.

It is wildly entertaining, watching some who claim it does though.

 

[Edmond Smith]

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. That was not a complete and honest quote of the definition given, you know it and I know it. Please, when you quote you should also link so that others can test your work.

But if you are an engineer then how do you explain over miles of water magically appearing and disappearing from the surface of the Earth and no evidence left behind? As an engineer you may be able to explain this.

Sure it was look it up...okay here it is:
religion
play
noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\
Simple Definition of religion
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups

• : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
  
  
• : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
  
  
• : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
  

• 
  

Full Definition of religion

1. 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
   
   
2. 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
   
   
3. 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
   
   
4. 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
   

re·li·gion·less adjective
See religion defined for English-language learners

See religion defined for kids



Examples of religion

1. Many people turn to religion for comfort in a time of crisis.
   
   
2. There are many religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.
   
   
3. Shinto is a religion that is unique to Japan.
   
   
4. Hockey is a religion in Canada.
   
   
5. Politics are a religion to him.
   
   
6. Where I live, high school football is religion.
   
   
7. Food is religion in this house.
   

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

As for the waters receeding, there's a lot of explanations..but I'll keep it simple.
1st there is natural evaporation,
2nd there are the caverns and new ones that probably were created due to the amount of water on the surface.
Plus, there is a God that is control

 

[Edmond Smith]

Agree.

It is wildly entertaining, watching some who claim it does though.

I agree, the bible isn't a science book.
It's historical narrative.

But it does have science in it.

 

[Smidlee]

But that is just an example of an unnatural sense of right and wrong that has been instilled into the animal. Ask any expert on animal behavior and they will tell you how they have their own sense of right and wrong. The fact that their sense of right and wrong is different from yours does not mean that they do not have one.




No, we have much more than that. All you have shown is your incredible ignorance of this branch of science. Please don't make false accusations against scientists that you cannot support. You should be asking questions so that you can learn, rather than by making claims that only demonstrate your ignorance.

Here is an example the belief of evolution is against science.
Evolutionist assumes their morals came from apes and try to claim they know right from wrong.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...deo-footage-clues-human-morality-evolved.html

"The zoo animals looked up to four times longer at the infanticide scenes than any of the other video clips, responding not just to the infant screams but also to the scenes as a whole.

The findings suggest that chimpanzees can distinguish between aggression against infants compared to other violent forms of behaviour.

However, the researchers also found while the chimps watched the infanticide scenes for longer, there was only limited evidence they became agitated or reacted to them."

Here we have evolutionist grabbing at straws. What evolutionist are doing is trying to interpret animal behavior through human moral lens.

To weigh in late on the question: Does Science Agree With the Bible?

No!

Does science agrees with itself? The answer would also be no. There are many example of empirical science contradicting story telling science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure it was look it up...okay here it is:
religion
play
noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\
Simple Definition of religion
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups

• : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
  
  
• : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
  
  
• : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

• 
  

Full Definition of religion

1. 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
   
   
2. 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
   
   
3. 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
   
   
4. 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

re·li·gion·less adjective
See religion defined for English-language learners

See religion defined for kids



Examples of religion

1. Many people turn to religion for comfort in a time of crisis.
   
   
2. There are many religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.
   
   
3. Shinto is a religion that is unique to Japan.
   
   
4. Hockey is a religion in Canada.
   
   
5. Politics are a religion to him.
   
   
6. Where I live, high school football is religion.
   
   
7. Food is religion in this house.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

As for the waters receeding, there's a lot of explanations..but I'll keep it simple.
1st there is natural evaporation,
2nd there are the caverns and new ones that probably were created due to the amount of water on the surface.
Plus, there is a God that is control

Please note that the theory of evolution does not fit those definitions. You are making an equivocation error. Do you know what that is? When someone is saying "Food is religion in this house" that is an example of hyperbole. You really need to brush up on your language skills.

And I see that you can't justify your refuted flood story. Don't worry, no flood believer can. To believe in a worldwide flood you have to reject all of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree, the bible isn't a science book.
It's historical narrative.

But it does have science in it.

And quite often both the science and the history are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is an example the belief of evolution is against science.
Evolutionist assumes their morals came from apes and try to claim they know right from wrong.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...deo-footage-clues-human-morality-evolved.html

"The zoo animals looked up to four times longer at the infanticide scenes than any of the other video clips, responding not just to the infant screams but also to the scenes as a whole.

The findings suggest that chimpanzees can distinguish between aggression against infants compared to other violent forms of behaviour.

However, the researchers also found while the chimps watched the infanticide scenes for longer, there was only limited evidence they became agitated or reacted to them."

Here we have evolutionist grabbing at straws. What evolutionist are doing is trying to interpret animal behavior through human moral lens.

Does science agrees with itself? The answer would also be no. There are many example of empirical science contradicting story telling science.

How does your misinterpretation of that article support your claim at all? By the way, we don't grab at straws, we don't have to that is your sin.

 

[Hoghead1]

Certainly animals do evidence compassion and altruistic behavior. Indeed, even bacteria have been shown to have altruistic behavior. Also, saying that we have inherited a "moral code" from animals does not mean our code is identical in every respect. The other issue is saying that "we cane from or inherit from apes." That is not what evolution contends. It contends we came from an ancestor common to both apes and ourselves, not apes per se. Please, if you are going to criticize evolution, at least get the facts straight what the evolutionary claims are.

 

[Smidlee]

Certainly animals do evidence compassion and altruistic behavior. Indeed, even bacteria have been shown to have altruistic behavior. Also, saying that we have inherited a "moral code" from animals does not mean our code is identical in every respect. The other issue is saying that "we cane from or inherit from apes." That is not what evolution contends. It contends we came from an ancestor common to both apes and ourselves, not apes per se. Please, if you are going to criticize evolution, at least get the facts straight what the evolutionary claims are.

Do you think that claiming the apes and human evolved from a mythological creature makes evolution sound better?
Evolution doesn't teach "A" evolved into "B" then into "C" then into "D" since they can't make it fit their imaginary tree of life. So they claim "X" evolve into "A" then "B" later evolved from "X" then "C" evolved from "X" then finally "D" with "X" as an unknown mythological creature.

 

[Edmond Smith]

Nah, just the creationists are becoming unglued. There antics give us hours of entertainment.

We entertain you...LOL
We believe that a Creator created creation.
You believe that something comes from nothing.

We believe we are wonderfully and fearfully made by God.
You believe that we either come from nothing..no..not that...uh from a single cell...wait not that either, we're not sure exactly, but we know we came from somewhere..wait, we come from apes...we can't prove it exactly...we know that we humans match 99% in the DNA...but oh I forget...there is not transitional fossils...oh wait we'll find some...well we did find a tooth one day and swore up and down it was early man...but uh...it turned out to be pigs tooth.


LOL...yeah we crack you up?

 

[Hoghead1]

Edmond, there is no "science" material in the Bible. The Bible is not in teh language of science, to start with. At the time of teh Reformation, the Reformers were confronted with the problem of how Scripture can fit with the new science of teh time, which was pushing out the biblical ideas idea of a flat earth, the sun going round the earth, etc. Calvin, for example, decided to stress that the Bible was not indented by God to be a book on astronomy. In short, God did not intend the Bible to be a scierntific text.

 

[Hoghead1]

There's nothing at all mythological about pointing to a common ancestor. In fact, Japanese scientists located a prime candidate back in 2007.