Bible and science?

[Queller]

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

But it would be difficult and time consuming to collect just places about his resurrection.

I'm still talking about writings outside of those that led to the founding of Christianity.

The Romans recorded that Jesus lived and died. That's historical evidence outside the Bible. Did they (or anyone else for that matter outside of believers) record the Resurrection?

I would say its an evidence.

How so?

Not a proof, not just a faith in something invented. Could Church exist without the resurrection in the beginning?

Of course not. But that doesn't mean that the existence of the Church is historical proof of the Resurrection.

 

[Queller]

No on the cat
Yes on the dog

How do you know?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

How do you know?

Science.

 

[Queller]

Science.

Science says dogs and wolves are different species, as are house cats and lions. You say dogs and wolves are the same "kind" but house cats and lions are not. On what science do you base that claim?

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm still talking about writings outside of those that led to the founding of Christianity.

The Romans recorded that Jesus lived and died. That's historical evidence outside the Bible. Did they (or anyone else for that matter outside of believers) record the Resurrection?

How so?

Of course not. But that doesn't mean that the existence of the Church is historical proof of the Resurrection.

I would agree that scripture is a form of evidence for the ressurection. I wouldn't consider it strong evidence, in the sense that typically you want third party sources to corroborate information. Even with third party sources, first hand evidence or direct observation with things like photographs would help.

But regardless of if it were weak evidence, I would still call scripture a form of evidence for the ressurection of Christ.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Science says dogs and wolves are different species, as are house cats and lions. You say dogs and wolves are the same "kind" but house cats and lions are not. On what science do you base that claim?

Obviously a dog and a wolf are of the same "kind". The word species is a modern classification. The bible uses "kind" not species.. Animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind.
That is all I know.

 

[The Barbarian]

And the point I'm also trying to get at is this: How is it that the earth formed over the billions of years, cooled and then after such a long time, only a few million years ago, had massive upheavals that formed mountains? Where did the energy of such formations come from? I'm truly puzzled at that idea and find it interesting.

It's still going on. India, for example, is continuing to crash into Asia at the speed of a few centimeters per year. And so the Himalayas are still rising. New crust is forming at the centers of oceans, and old oceanic crust is being shoved under the continents, from which the melt and rise back up as volcanoes.

The Earth continues to move around, due to convection currents of magma in the mantle.

 

[The Barbarian]

Animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind.
That is all I know.

That is not in scripture, nor is it supported by evidence. It's just a modern belief.

 

[trophy33]

I'm still talking about writings outside of those that led to the founding of Christianity.

The Romans recorded that Jesus lived and died. That's historical evidence outside the Bible. Did they (or anyone else for that matter outside of believers) record the Resurrection?

Many Christian writings from the first century are outside of the Bible. Or do you mean that you do not want it to be Christian at all? Well, that would be a strange combination to get from somebody who is not a Christian to say that Christ was rised.

On the other hand, Christians do not lie, try to live morally... Romans were still barbarians and animals, liers and murderers. Why do you want their testimony? Christian testimony is much better because of the moral teaching of Christianity. Also, Christians risked persecution and painful death for their testimony. Every good judge would say that Christ was risen, based on this.

How so?
Of course not. But that doesn't mean that the existence of the Church is historical proof of the Resurrection.

Not sure what you mean by that. If a roof cannot be in the air without the house under it, then the roof is the evidence/proof of the house under it, even if it is somehow covered from our eyes (by a tree, for example).

If there is Christian church, then its an evidence that in its beginnings (in history), there was the resurrection of Christ...

 

[JacksBratt]

The Mt St helends canyon is derived of volcanic Ash layers, not brittle faulted rock. Of course ash can erode much more readily than quartzite.

Polystrate fossils to not cross cut formations of various ages (just strata of like ages, of individual formations).

The rest of your response is too vague to address.

I am not a geologist or an expert in any of these fields. However, the canyon at Mt St Helen's was formed in hours. The flood lasted a year... I do know how fast water can erode rock and I also know the power of a mud slurry with various sizes and types of rocks and it's ability to grind and pulverize autogenously.

The destruction of a few hours, compared to a year is note worthy.

I have been to Joggins. The tour guide makes it quite clear of the age of each layer of strata... Yet, the trees go right up through these.

The roots are on the trees, not because they were growing... but because they were yanked from their places and frozen in settled mud and rock in a very short period of time.

Like I said, I'm not an expert... I do firmly believe that, in the end, all will be revealed and God's Word will be shown to be the solid truth.

 

[trophy33]

I am not a geologist or an expert in any of these fields. However, the canyon at Mt St Helen's was formed in hours. The flood lasted a year... I do know how fast water can erode rock and I also know the power of a mud slurry with various sizes and types of rocks and it's ability to grind and pulverize autogenously.

The destruction of a few hours, compared to a year is note worthy.

I have been to Joggins. The tour guide makes it quite clear of the age of each layer of strata... Yet, the trees go right up through these.

The roots are on the trees, not because they were growing... but because they were yanked from their places and frozen in settled mud and rock in a very short period of time.

Like I said, I'm not an expert... I do firmly believe that, in the end, all will be revealed and God's Word will be shown to be the solid truth.

You do not have to be an expert to understand that even though both are "canyons" by their shape, their composition is totally different.

Of course I can make a sand castle in minutes, but it does not mean that real castles were made like this. Because they are not made of sand.

 

[steve78]

I would agree that scripture is a form of evidence for the ressurection. I wouldn't consider it strong evidence, in the sense that typically you want third party sources to corroborate information. Even with third party sources, first hand evidence or direct observation with things like photographs would help.

But regardless of if it were weak evidence, I would still call scripture a form of evidence for the ressurection of Christ.

Its evidence simply because there is no strong evidence to support that the ressurrection did not happen.

There is good medical evidence in the bible that Jesus was dead when he was taken down from the cross which debunks the theory that he was not really dead when he was put in the tomb.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am not a geologist or an expert in any of these fields. However, the canyon at Mt St Helen's was formed in hours. The flood lasted a year... I do know how fast water can erode rock and I also know the power of a mud slurry with various sizes and types of rocks and it's ability to grind and pulverize autogenously.

The destruction of a few hours, compared to a year is note worthy.

I have been to Joggins. The tour guide makes it quite clear of the age of each layer of strata... Yet, the trees go right up through these.

The roots are on the trees, not because they were growing... but because they were yanked from their places and frozen in settled mud and rock in a very short period of time.

Like I said, I'm not an expert... I do firmly believe that, in the end, all will be revealed and God's Word will be shown to be the solid truth.

Saying that you aren't an expert, of course doesn't justify your ideas. You seem to be aware of the shortcomings of your claims. You should seek justification for them, rather than just blindly throwing the claim out there, in hopes that people would just blindly accept them.

If you're unsure of how fast rock can be eroded by water, just Google it.

People have pondered the same question before, many times.

Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

And no matter how you crunch the numbers, there is no research supporting erosion of rock at any rate in which 5,000-10,000 feet could be eroded in a single year. The only exception is in cases of mass wasting, which is not the case of the Grand canyon.

Mt St Helens (the aftermath of the eruption) is an event of mass wasting, combined with loose and unconsolidated rock. It is the best of both worlds with respect to high erosional rates, whereas the Grand canyon would be the worst of both worlds with dense rock, great depths and features such as meanders which display a low energy means of erosion (the opposite of mass wasting).

The Grand canyon is really the opposite of Mt St Helens, geologically.

And with that I'll move on. The same goes for your suggestions on polystrate fossils. You should justify your ideas rather than just blindly throwing them out on the table.

 

[Job 33:6]

Oh, and it is true that the eruption of Mt St Helens occurred in a day while the global flood is suggested to have lasted a year.

But when you're talking about erosion of thousands of feet (upwards of 10,000) of dense rock in a low energy environment, versus mass wasting of maybe a few tens of feet of loose ash, the difference between erosional rates at mt St Helens and the Grand canyon ultimately are many orders of magnitude apart (according to any research that anyone could possibly reference on the subject).

 

[eleos1954]

The clean beasts were taken by sevens both male and female. The unclean by twos.
Genesis 7
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

I'd also just like to add ....

Genesis 1:24-26

Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind'; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

so "after their kind" ... we see different variations of cats, dogs etc. and this is referred to micro evolution ... and certainly is biblically acceptable ... and that's exactly what we see going on.

Macro evolution is not biblically acceptable ... extreme example ... a mouse can't, won't mate with a rabbit ... because not after their kind.

God Bless.

 

[Job 33:6]

Its evidence simply because there is no strong evidence to support that the ressurrection did not happen.

There is good medical evidence in the bible that Jesus was dead when he was taken down from the cross which debunks the theory that he was not really dead when he was put in the tomb.

I would say that scripture serves as evidence for the ressurection, because it suggests that the ressurection occurred.

I don't think that a lack of evidence suggesting that it hasn't occurred, makes scripture a form of evidence.

Just as a lack of evidence against the Apollo moon landings is lacking, I don't think that makes NASA's evidence exist. Rather NASA's evidence exists on it's own, just as a form of information.

Then would simply enter the question of credibility of the evidence and what sources corroborate the information.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

so "after their kind" ... we see different variations of cats, dogs etc. and this is referred to micro evolution ... and certainly is biblically acceptable ... and that's exactly what we see going on.

So what exactly stops the "micro evolution" before it becomes "macro evolution" ? God ?

 

[eleos1954]

I have heard people argue that the Bible and science contradicts, e.g. along the lines of claiming that there are many species of a certain type of animal (I am not saying I believe the Bible and science contradicts, I am just saying this is what some people claim) "contrary" to Noah's ark?

What are your thoughts on this?

Someone in the thread had mentioned the Grand Canyon as being evolved. Here's one link to the creation side of that. Grand Canyon—What Is the Message?

Also go check out some Hugh Ross videos:

The Bible isn't a detailed "science" book ... God's more interested in relationships between Him and mankind ... but one can ... and should internet research scientists that do support the creation events .... there are many many many of them.

Of course evolutionists will "poo poo" those scientists.

God Bless .... Gods divine word .... bank on it! ;o)

 

[eleos1954]

So what exactly stops the "micro evolution" before it becomes "macro evolution" ? God ?

Definition of micro evolution

evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.

Micro evolution stay/mate within their species "family" in order to reproduce with macro evolution they do not reproduce/mate outside of their species "family".

 

[trophy33]

Of course evolutionists will "poo poo" those scientists.

Well, if we see new species in various strata, we can say:
a) animals in the higher strata evolved from animals in lower strata (evolution)
b) God made creation events in every strata, so He created in waves, during all the history (progressive creationism - Hugh Ross)

Even though both are plausible, I think the a) is more simple. It does not require God making huge miracles all the time. And it also corresponds with DNA and other evidence we have for evolution.