Bible and science?

[Job 33:6]

Definition of micro evolution

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

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

This response doesn't make any sense, as biological change is not dependent upon whether or not species can breed with other species.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Definition of micro evolution

Go wikipedia

Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occurs over time within a population.[1] This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow and genetic drift. This change happens over a relatively short (in evolutionary terms) amount of time compared to the changes termed macroevolution which is where greater differences in the population occur.

The bolded part is the issue here...over a relatively short (in evolutionary terms) amount of time.

What happens when this change continues over long amount of time it becomes as was defined above macroevolution.

Your claim is this will not happen so what stops microevolution from becoming macro evolution ?

 

[steve78]

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

Scripture is not evidence cause what is recorded comes from sources who were not witness to the actual event itself and written many years after the event. Therefore what is written is not a first hand account but an account of what happened that has been passed down a few generations. Problem with this that this usually leads to errors as details tend to change as the story is passes down generations.

 

[Job 33:6]

Scripture is not evidence cause what is recorded comes from sources who were not witness to the actual event itself and written many years after the event. Therefore what is written is not a first hand account but an account of what happened that has been passed down a few generations. Problem with this that this usually leads to errors as details tend to change as the story is passes down generations.

Evidence, by definition, is just information that indicates that an idea is true. Even third hand sources are evidence, just not strong evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

I don't think you understand the difference between soft ash and hard metamorphic rock. I've been to Mt. St. Helens, and looked at those canyons. They aren't what you were told they are.

Notice the walls slump when they get more than a few meters high. And you don't see these:

Entrenched meanders only happen under certain circumstances. And old, slow river wanders because erosion speeds up on the outside of curves, and soil is deposited on the inside of curves. Over time, the river wanders and snakes into loops. If the land is then uplifted, as the grand canyon area was, the river is "rejuvenated", speed up, and becomes locked into the bed, cutting deeper and deeper into the rock.

This process is being observed today, so we know how it works.

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

Here's Sioux falls, in South Dakota. The river has been running through here since the last ice age. The rock is quartzite. The "canyon" is a few feet deep.

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 condition of the trees is a tip-off. They were actually not woody trees, but lycopods, with a hard outer layer and a pithy center. The trees at Joggins are hollowed out; the pith decayed before being buried. There are often fossils of lizards and other animals in the center, showing that they were dead and rotted before being buried, which would eliminate them from a "flood."

There are similar polystrate fossils being made, not far from my house were decades ago, a dam flooded some woods. Most of the dead trees are still standing, and they are slowly being buried in layers of sediment.

Like I said, I'm not an expert...

Not knowing what one is talking about is a great disadvantage, yes.

I do firmly believe that, in the end, all will be revealed and God's Word will be shown to be the solid truth.

It will. But of course, it's not what the YE creationist is hoping for.

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't think you understand the difference between soft ash and hard metamorphic rock. I've been to Mt. St. Helens, and looked at those canyons. They aren't what you were told they are.

Notice the walls slump when they get more than a few meters high. And you don't see these:

Entrenched meanders only happen under certain circumstances. And old, slow river wanders because erosion speeds up on the outside of curves, and soil is deposited on the inside of curves. Over time, the river wanders and snakes into loops. If the land is then uplifted, as the grand canyon area was, the river is "rejuvenated", speed up, and becomes locked into the bed, cutting deeper and deeper into the rock.

This process is being observed today, so we know how it works.

Here's Sioux falls, in South Dakota. The river has been running through here since the last ice age. The rock is quartzite. The "canyon" is a few feet deep.



The condition of the trees is a tip-off. They were actually not woody trees, but lycopods, with a hard outer layer and a pithy center. The trees at Joggins are hollowed out; the pith decayed before being buried. There are often fossils of lizards and other animals in the center, showing that they were dead and rotted before being buried, which would eliminate them from a "flood."

There are similar polystrate fossils being made, not far from my house were decades ago, a dam flooded some woods. Most of the dead trees are still standing, and they are slowly being buried in layers of sediment.



Not knowing what one is talking about is a great disadvantage, yes.



It will. But of course, it's not what the YE creationist is hoping for.

Like I said, I am no expert. However, change the nice clean water that flows over Sioux Falls, that runs very close to 1000 g/l, to a slurry of mud and rock at 1500 - 1700 g/l and watch how long they last in their present condition.

It's the difference to rubbing your hand over your skin with baby oil... and then adding some nice beach sand to the baby oil and rubbing that on your skin.

 

[The Barbarian]

Like I said, I am no expert. However, change the nice clean water that flows over Sioux Falls, that runs very close to 1000 g/l,

A mixture of highly abrasive quartzite rock and grit (Mohs hardness 7) compared to the Grand Canyon made mostly of mudstone, shale, and limestone, with some sandstone. Really hard limestone is only a Mohs hardness of 4.

to a slurry of mud and rock at 1500 - 1700 g/l and watch how long they last in their present condition.

It was mostly mud. So, the abrasion would be like comparing 40 grit sandpaper with 000 steel wool. The former abrades; the latter polishes. No, even if your assumptions were right, there's no way soft particles are going to wear away as much in a few months as hard quartzite will wear away in tens of thousands of years.

It's the difference to rubbing your hand over your skin with baby oil...

Like mud and limestone particles.

and then adding some nice beach sand to the baby oil and rubbing that on your skin.

Like quartzite rock fragments.

Understand now? You pretty much made my case for me.

 

[He-rat of the Circus-mice]

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?

If ever there appears to be a conflict, take God's word over science. Science falsely called (as it is largely the beliefs of popular scientists, rather than science itself that ever disagrees with scripture) contradicts with itself over mere decades, let alone centuries. God's word hasn't changed in millenia. For me, the track record makes the decision easy.

The irony is that true science (rather than the opinions of scientists made famous for their anti-God opinions), actually support the scriptural truth in all respects.

 

[The Barbarian]

If ever there appears to be a conflict, take God's word over science.

If science and God's word seem to contradict each other, then you have misunderstood one or both of them.

Science falsely called (as it is largely the beliefs of popular scientists, rather than science itself that ever disagrees with scripture)

Mostly, it's YE creationists, with their man-made doctrines, that disagree with science and scripture.

contradicts with itself over mere decades, let alone centuries.

Atoms were known before Christ. So was a round Earth. So was a heliocentric solar system. You've been badly misled about that.

God's word hasn't changed in millenia.

But man's interpretation has. YE creationism, for example, is no older than the last century.

For me, the track record makes the decision easy.

For a Christian, no decision is necessary. God's creation accurately reflects God. If you don't think so, you've made a major error.

The irony is that true science (rather than the opinions of scientists made famous for their anti-God opinions)

Most scientists are theists of some kind. So you've been misled by that, too.

actually support the scriptural truth in all respects.

No. Science is a method that can only examine the physical universe. The supernatural is entirely inaccessible to science.

And God made us (and the world) so that we don't need to be scientifically trained to see His wisdom and power in the things He has made.

Let God be God and it won't bother you any more.

 

[Queller]

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.

The Romans recorded that Christ lived and died. Why wouldn't they record His Resurrection?

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.

First off, Christians lie just like those of any other faith.

Second, I'm not asking for testimony, I'm asking for historical evidence. I already gave an example of Solomon's temple.

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...

By that logic, the fact that Mormon churches exist is historical evidence that Jesus visited what would become America.

Look, I'm not denying the Resurrection happened, I'm simply saying that the Bible is not historical evidence of the event.

 

[Queller]

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.

Obviously the earth is several billion years old and all species descend from a common ancestor.

 

[Queller]

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

Nothing in science claims that a mouse could or would mate with a rabbit.

 

[Queller]

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".

What stops one species from evolving so much that it can no longer breed with others?

 

[trophy33]

The Romans recorded that Christ lived and died. Why wouldn't they record His Resurrection?

Romans were not witnessing the event, Jews were.

First off, Christians lie just like those of any other faith.

Today? Maybe. In the first century? No. Why to lie and get killed for it? The situation was very different, it was not an advantage to be a Christian back then like it is today in the USA' politics.

Second, I'm not asking for testimony, I'm asking for historical evidence. I already gave an example of Solomon's temple.

How to you imagine an "archeological" evidence of a resurrection?

By that logic, the fact that Mormon churches exist is historical evidence that Jesus visited what would become America.

No, because they did not witness it, they just got some "revelation".

Look, I'm not denying the Resurrection happened, I'm simply saying that the Bible is not historical evidence of the event.

Bible is as reliable evidence as some pagan roman archive is. Actually, more.

 

[Queller]

Romans were not witnessing the event, Jews were.

Thanks for making my point.

Today? Maybe. In the first century? No. Why to lie and get killed for it? The situation was very different, it was not an advantage to be a Christian back then like it is today in the USA' politics.

How to you imagine an "archeological" evidence of a resurrection?

I don't. There isn't archeological evidence of Christ living either but there is historical (i.e. non-biased) evidence for it.

No, because they did not witness it, they just got some "revelation".

Not according to them. According to the book of Mormon, people witnessed Jesus in North America. They passed it down and someone wrote it down.

Bible is as reliable evidence as some pagan roman archive is. Actually, more.

For the faith yes. For the history? No.

 

[eleos1954]

Nothing in science claims that a mouse could or would mate with a rabbit.

I know that ... everybody knows that ... it was an extreme analogy used as an example of the biblical teaching of "after their kind" verses not "after their kind"

That is ... what we see in nature (naturally) are those reproducing after their kind as biblically stated.

 

[Queller]

I know that ... everybody knows that ...

Really, here's a video...

Cameron (strating at around 3:45) clearly believes that something like a crocoduck should exist if evolution were true.

it was an extreme analogy used as an example of the biblical teaching of "after their kind" verses not "after their kind"

That is ... what we see in nature (naturally) are those reproducing after their kind as biblically stated.

What prevents a split off dog population from microevolving so far that it can no longer mate with the descendants of the original population?

 

[Justified112]

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?

Science and the Bible do not contradict at all. Evolution and the Bible contradict. Science, done properly, is a marvelous means of observing and learning about the glory of God. Science reveals a lot of wonderful things about our Creator beyond His obvious existence.

What we have to guard against is letting the scientific community, which is mostly atheistic in its worldview, hijack the interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Justified112]

It's possible that Noahs flood was not even normal water.
Call me a softie, but wouldn't it be kind to use a special water from the fountains of the deep so everyone didn't drown painfully? God has talents.

"Special water????" O come on. Seriously??? The Bible makes no such assertions. It says that the flood was global and that it covered the entire earth. Every reference to the flood of Noah in the Bible tells us that it was global with only 8 human survivors and the animals that were on the ark.

Yes, it is likely that those on the outside suffered terrible drowning deaths. But they had 120 years to repent. They made their choice.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Special water?" O come on. Seriously?

You may look into this topic, with more serious intent.

John 4:14
But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

Revelation 22:1
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb

Revelation 16:3-5
And the second angel poured out his vial on the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

Exodus 14:21,22
And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

Exodus 17:6
Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock in Horeb; and you shall smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Matthew 14:26-29
And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.

Topical Bible: Water: Miracles Connected With