Science VS the Bible

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
BobRyan said:
I simply propose a "real science" objection and what it would look like if one existed.
I am talking about the science fact that the light from the sun comes as a result of fusion reactions on the sun and the Bible is making no such case about light source for sun vs moon. Its description is at the level of the name of the objects and the fact that they appear as two lights in the sky - and we know they move independent from each other as view from the frame of reference of an observer on Earth.

Were you looking for a link to the physics that explains light from the sun?? I can help with that.


But why are you talking about that when I clearly asked you if the moon is an actual independent body of light or just reflects light? Where ever the light from the sun comes from is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Bible still equates to religious views. You can't dictate religious views over science facts. As given the examples before, you have verses in the Bible stating the moon as a body of light, yet we know the moon is just a satellite that reflects light off the sun. Therefore there is really one main body of light for the earth.

Now if I come to you saying the moon is an absolute body of light as i've interpreted from scripture, from where are you going to tell me my beliefs are wrong?
QV please: Post 15
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single

There is still a problem, in Genesis 1:16 the moon's development is in the context of light because along with it's development is the sun and the stars. Whether or not you want to pry in reasoning to justify this the point is if a fundamentalist Christian claims that the moon is an independent light, because this is what the Bible says (based on his interpretation), how are you going to prove him wrong with out science?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
... how are you going to prove him wrong with out science?
If he is employing science to argue that the Bible says the moon is an independent source of light, I cannot use science to talk him out of it.

Science is leading him astray.

My favorite way of "proving him wrong," is by simply asking him, "Do you believe this? If not, mind if I don't believe it either?"

The sun is not a light -- it is a light source.

The moon is not a light -- it is a light reflector.

And God calling them both "lights," without using the qualifying words "source" and "reflector" is simply a matter of "Author's choice."

Anyone who injects science into Genesis 1 will end up confused, and to "blaspheme their way out" of their confusion by claiming Genesis 1 is a myth, legend, or anything but what it is, doesn't wash.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Anyone who injects science into Genesis 1 will end up confused, and to "blaspheme their way out" of their confusion by claiming Genesis 1 is a myth, legend, or anything but what it is, doesn't wash.

So, which? Is the Genesis story a scientific account of creation or a "myth, legend"?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, which?
Genesis 1 is a literal account of how God created the universe in six days in 4004 BC, raising the amount of mass/energy of the universe from zero to what it is today, via a series of one miracle after another after another.

And I believe He purposely "jumbled" the order of creation up, knowing that, in the latter days. evolution would become a viable [but lying] explanation.

In other words, the more things are "jumbled" in Genesis 1 ... like the earth before the sun ... the more Genesis 1 is out of place with science.
Hmmm! said:
Is the Genesis story a scientific account of creation ...
Absolutely not. Genesis 1 had nothing to do with science whatsoever.
Hmmm! said:
... or a "myth, legend"?
Neither.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Genesis 1 is a literal account of how God created the universe in six days in 4004 BC, raising the amount of mass/energy of the universe from zero to what it is today, via a series of one miracle after another after another.

And I believe He purposely "jumbled" the order of creation up, knowing that, in the latter days. evolution would become a viable [but lying] explanation.

In other words, the more things are "jumbled" in Genesis 1 ... like the earth before the sun ... the more Genesis 1 is out of place with science.Absolutely not. Genesis 1 had nothing to do with science whatsoever.Neither.

So how do you explain the many, many things that science has achieved for humanity? Don't you think that God had a hand in those achievements?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If he is employing science to argue that the Bible says the moon is an independent source of light, I cannot use science to talk him out of it.

Science is leading him astray.

My favorite way of "proving him wrong," is by simply asking him, "Do you believe this? If not, mind if I don't believe it either?"

The sun is not a light -- it is a light source.

The moon is not a light -- it is a light reflector.

And God calling them both "lights," without using the qualifying words "source" and "reflector" is simply a matter of "Author's choice."

Anyone who injects science into Genesis 1 will end up confused, and to "blaspheme their way out" of their confusion by claiming Genesis 1 is a myth, legend, or anything but what it is, doesn't wash.

He is not using science, he is rejecting it. His beliefs of the moon being an independent light is strictly from his interpretation of what the Bible says.

The Bible says that God made 2 lights, and talked about the moon as like the sun and stars. Other verses as well say the moon has it's own light. There is nothing suggesting the moon reflects so how do you know he is wrong and why should he believe you? In a later post I read you claim that Gen 1 is a literal 6 day account, so why can't I take Gen 1:16 to mean the moon is literally a ball of light?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So how do you explain the many, many things that science has achieved for humanity?
They're just doing their job.

I believe God gifts us scientists, whose jobs are to manipulate His creation by way of discoveries and inventions, so as to make our lives better as time goes on.

Much like God calls men into the pulpit to preach, or into the mission fields; God calls men into the laboratory, or out in the field to work.
pescador said:
Don't you think that God had a hand in those achievements?
Absolutely.

Whether it be endowing a man with the gift of prophecy to preach ...

Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

Or endowing a man with the gift of knowledge to do research ...

1 Corinthians 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

Either way, God gets the credit.

It's when men use God's gifts against His word that I get riled.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Bible says that God made 2 lights, and talked about the moon as like the sun and stars.
Neither the sun, nor the moon are "lights," per se.

As I pointed out earlier, the moon is not a light, it is a source of reflected light; the sun is not a light, it is a light generator.

Light is nothing more than a wavelength moving at C (yes, I'm familiar with the dual nature of light).

If you're going to complain that the moon is not a light, complain that the sun is not a light as well.

In Genesis 1, God made two light sources: one a generator and one a reflector.
Cis.jd said:
Other verses as well say the moon has it's own light.
So do the Almanac and the newspapers. Are they just as wrong, when they talk about sunlight and moonlight?
Cis.jd said:
In a later post I read you claim that Gen 1 is a literal 6 day account, so why can't I take Gen 1:16 to mean the moon is literally a ball of light?
Go right ahead.

But if you don't, do you mind if I don't either?
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Neither the sun, nor the moon are "lights," per se.

As I pointed out earlier, the moon is not a light, it is a source of reflected light; the sun is not a light, it is a light generator.

Light is nothing more than a wavelength moving at C (yes, I'm familiar with the dual nature of light).

If you're going to complain that the moon is not a light, complain that the sun is not a light as well.

In Genesis 1, God made two light sources: one a generator and one a reflector.So do the Almanac and the newspapers. Are they just as wrong, when they talk about sunlight and moonlight?Go right ahead.

But if you don't, do you mind if I don't either?

Sun is a light, or in other words energy. It releases photons and it is an actual body of energy. The point I was saying is if someone who believes the moon is a literal body of light, not a reflector, but an actual independent light source because of how he/she reads it as in the Bible, how are you going to tell him that the moon is just reflecting the sun's light and why should he/she believe you if it's not in the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sun is a light, or in other words energy. It releases photons and it is an actual body of energy. The point I was saying is if someone who believes the moon is a literal body of light, not a reflector, but an actual independent light source because of how he/she reads it as in the Bible, how are you going to tell him that the moon is just reflecting the sun's light and why should he/she believe you if it's not in the Bible?
Here is my criteria again:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x = dual agreement
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x = science can take a hike
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x = Biblical support
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x = Scientific support
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

And here's the verse in question:

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The moon, in my opinion, falls under Stipulation #4 above.

Thus I would tell the person that science has concluded that the moon only reflects its light ... (notice I said "its light") ... and doesn't generate light itself.

Once the light from the sun hits the moon's surface, it is reflected back; but it is called "moonlight," not "sunlight," because we are dealing with proprietary light.

In other words, once the light of the sun hits the moon, the moon "takes ownership" of that light that is reflected back.

If he asks why he should believe me, since the Bible doesn't say all this, then I would assume he is invoking Stipulation #2 above, and that would be at his discretion.

He can always admit to me later at the Marriage Supper that he was wrong. ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Here is my criteria again:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x = dual agreement
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x = science can take a hike
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x = Biblical support
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x = Scientific support
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

And here's the verse in question:

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The moon, in my opinion, falls under Stipulation #4 above.

Thus I would tell the person that science has concluded that the moon only reflects its light ... (notice I said "its light") ... and doesn't generate light itself.

Once the light from the sun hits the moon's surface, it is reflected back; but it is called "moonlight," not "sunlight," because we are dealing with proprietary light.

In other words, once the light of the sun hits the moon, the moon "takes ownership" of that light that is reflected back.

If he asks why he should believe me, since the Bible doesn't say all this, then I would assume he is invoking Stipulation #2 above, and that would be at his discretion.

He can always admit to me later at the Marriage Supper that he was wrong. ;)

But the whole issue is that it is more of what you have in #2 than #4. It's not just that the bible makes 0 reference of the moon being a reflector, it's entire description (with all the verses) are practically describing the moon to have it's own independent light. It's creation is in the same context with the sun and the moon. So by the Bible's description, then anyone is free to use that #2 of yours just like how many do with the 6 day creation, young earth, big bang, and evolution.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Genesis 1:14-19: "God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day."

So God made two "lights" to supply the earth with light. I can call my lamp a light and I would also be correct because it emits light. If I smoked I could ask someone for a light and they would understand the word. Whether the light is generated or reflected is irrelevant because the output of the heavenly bodies is what's being described in these verses.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Whether the light is generated or reflected is irrelevant because the output of the heavenly bodies is what's being described in these verses.
Well-stated.

So what's the fiasco all about? why are we having this discussion in the first place?
 
Upvote 0