Sorry John but this is too good a straight line to pass up.
While you have neither.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
While you have neither.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
OEC (old earth creation)
- Thread starter JohnR7
- Start date
You know, the Reason to Believe site has a very good analysis of the progression of creation over the LONG days which they argue completely fits in with Scripture and is entirely consistent with science as well.
Go to www.reasons.org to see it. I am too lazy to drill to the specific article or page, but it should not be too hard to find. Basically, once they start with the concept that the 'days' need not be read as exclusive, but could have been overlapping (and they explain why this is Biblically sound), the parallels between the Genesis description and our scientific knowledge is actually an incredible proof of the divine inspiration of the Bible. How could a sheepherder thousands of years ago with very little scientific knowledge have gotten it so right?
Go to www.reasons.org to see it. I am too lazy to drill to the specific article or page, but it should not be too hard to find. Basically, once they start with the concept that the 'days' need not be read as exclusive, but could have been overlapping (and they explain why this is Biblically sound), the parallels between the Genesis description and our scientific knowledge is actually an incredible proof of the divine inspiration of the Bible. How could a sheepherder thousands of years ago with very little scientific knowledge have gotten it so right?
Upvote
0
Are you saying that the sheepherders were right and plants really were created before the sun and that the earth really is fixed and can't move?Vance said:
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
Ah yes, the Opposite form of a literalist. Go through some of their "the bible said the science first" and see how much grabbing at straws they do to try and get it to fit.
Its an interesting ID site, and usefull against YEC, but there are often quite a few flaws in their thinking.
Its an interesting ID site, and usefull against YEC, but there are often quite a few flaws in their thinking.
Upvote
0
Oh, I agree that there is much on their site I disagree with, like the forced view of long ages for early man, but overall they do fairly well in keeping to a scientific foundation. In regards to the plants before the sun, I think they hold that the sun was created first, but that there was some action that cleared away some layers of the atmosphere to allow dramatically greater light. They actually have some science, IIRC to show how this is exactly how it would have happened. I will have to track down their full analysis, though. Remember, they believe that the ages are not strictly mutually exclusive, but that there is some significant overlap.
Upvote
0
Here is a link to a chapter of the book "A new look at an old earth" which discusses Genesis 1. I think it follows closely to the RTB model (I assume so since Hugh Ross wrote the introduction to the book). Sometimes I think he goes farther than he needs to, but overall you can see where they are coming from.
http://answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR6.HTM#Correlation
http://answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR6.HTM#Correlation
Upvote
0
Yeah. The biggest problem I see is that whenever a group tries to claim the bible is scientifically accurate, they often have to twist or ignore the obviously inaccurate things.
Even though they seem to get that the current set of hypothesis of life from non life is called abiogenesis, they still lump it in with evolution. They also made an odd comment about a species needing a large population to evolve, when from what I understand smaller populations evolve quicker than very large ones because it takes a less amount of time for a helpfull mutation to become common in the group (one of the many reasons humans are practically at an evolution standstill, a mutation would take a very long time before it could become a standard part of our species).
I was reading through and I couldnt find where they showed the earth had a atmosphere that light couldnt penetrate, however the claimed that at one point it somehow changed to transparent. I searched but I couldnt find any information about the skies not being transparent when plants formed.
I like that they are trying to use science, but I have never seen the point in replacing someones very mixed up view point, with a more scientific but still mixed up view point.
Edit: And their bad citation abilities. At one point they make the extrordinary claim that for evolution to happen a species, "must have a population of one quadrillion individuals, a generation time of three months, and a body size of one centimeter. These conclusions are confirmed by field observations." Yet they fail to give any sort of citation as to where they got their numbers from, where they got their data from (in the paragraph above it) or what "field observations" showed it. They just seem to pull a statement out of the air and expect us to believe. A Very poor way to write an article, especially from someone who is supposed to have a Ph.D.
Even though they seem to get that the current set of hypothesis of life from non life is called abiogenesis, they still lump it in with evolution. They also made an odd comment about a species needing a large population to evolve, when from what I understand smaller populations evolve quicker than very large ones because it takes a less amount of time for a helpfull mutation to become common in the group (one of the many reasons humans are practically at an evolution standstill, a mutation would take a very long time before it could become a standard part of our species).
I was reading through and I couldnt find where they showed the earth had a atmosphere that light couldnt penetrate, however the claimed that at one point it somehow changed to transparent. I searched but I couldnt find any information about the skies not being transparent when plants formed.
I like that they are trying to use science, but I have never seen the point in replacing someones very mixed up view point, with a more scientific but still mixed up view point.
Edit: And their bad citation abilities. At one point they make the extrordinary claim that for evolution to happen a species, "must have a population of one quadrillion individuals, a generation time of three months, and a body size of one centimeter. These conclusions are confirmed by field observations." Yet they fail to give any sort of citation as to where they got their numbers from, where they got their data from (in the paragraph above it) or what "field observations" showed it. They just seem to pull a statement out of the air and expect us to believe. A Very poor way to write an article, especially from someone who is supposed to have a Ph.D.
Vance said:
Upvote
0
God created light out of nothing on day one, and then created the sun to take over the job for the rest of the universe's life. What do you think Heaven is lit with? Certaintly not a sunJohnR7 said:
There was no sun in the beginning of creation, the light just covered the Earth without a source.
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
Because light already covered the Earth, and was divided between the day and the night. The only difference being, the light didn't have a natural source (sun) until later.drfeelgood said:
Upvote
0
Arikay said:
The "obviously inaccurate things" things of science? There is not much we can do about that. Science is man made, so there is going to be a lot of error and inaccuracy in it. We just have to work with it as best we can. Of course we know the Bible is inspired by God, so that helps to elimate the inaccuracy we find in science.
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
JohnR7 said:
man made? inaccuracies, what do you mean?
and inspired or not, the bible is man made.
Upvote
0
John, I was talking about the twisting of Bible verses. Did you actually misread my post? Or did you do it on purpose?
JohnR7 said:
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
Arikay said:
Oh, well I know the Bible is accurate, but you say you were talking about man's interpretation of the Bible not being accurate? I suppose there maybe people who are weak in the faith who do not fully grasp the deep things of God.
Upvote
0
but im sure you do.
The bible is not accurate in science. But those that try to pretend the bible is a science book, have to either ignore scripture or twist it to try and make it correct. Often pulling vague verses and giving complex scientific meaning to them.
The bible is not accurate in science. But those that try to pretend the bible is a science book, have to either ignore scripture or twist it to try and make it correct. Often pulling vague verses and giving complex scientific meaning to them.
Upvote
0
Arikay said:
Let us say for arguement sake that you have 200,000 books with information about geology and only one Bible. Now, you can not expect one book to contain all the information that your going to find in two hundrerd or even three hundred thousand books.
So then you could ask, what is the value of the Bible? The value is that the Bible is the corner stone, it is the standard to gage the truthfulness of all 300,000 books on geology.
When you build a building, no matter how BIG that building is, there is always going to be a "cornerstone". A point in that building where you establish plumb and level. Everything in that building goes back & relates to that cornerstone. For us, the Bible is that cornerstone that sets the standard.
You can question the skill of the builders. But just because the builders lack skill, does not mean the cornerstone was not properly set. If you question the ability of those who interpret the Bible, that does not mean that the standard the Bible sets is not accurate.
Upvote
0
Philostratus
Active Member
Nice post John! It was clear and understandable AND actually made a point.
The next question I have then is: If the Bible is the supposed "Cornerstone of Science", what exactly are scientists supposed to plumb up to? The contention many scientists (and Christian ones at that) have with this line of reasoning is that they find no evidence of useable or accurate scientific data in the Bible.
I believe, JohnR7, that you truly believe there is (or desire greatly for it to be there. I think this desire stems from your want to participate in a field of study where you are underqualified or just plain not good: science). Your hope that much of science is just as made up as your interpretations of the Bible in this area is your weakness. Scientists don't just make it up as they go along. This is something YOU seem to do to get the Bible to jibe with what is known about our physical world.
This has been said many times on these boards John: The Bible addresses theological and spiritual things, NOT scientific things. It never will.
The next question I have then is: If the Bible is the supposed "Cornerstone of Science", what exactly are scientists supposed to plumb up to? The contention many scientists (and Christian ones at that) have with this line of reasoning is that they find no evidence of useable or accurate scientific data in the Bible.
I believe, JohnR7, that you truly believe there is (or desire greatly for it to be there. I think this desire stems from your want to participate in a field of study where you are underqualified or just plain not good: science). Your hope that much of science is just as made up as your interpretations of the Bible in this area is your weakness. Scientists don't just make it up as they go along. This is something YOU seem to do to get the Bible to jibe with what is known about our physical world.
This has been said many times on these boards John: The Bible addresses theological and spiritual things, NOT scientific things. It never will.
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
Philostratus said:
Thank you, if you like the cornerstone example, perhaps you would like to read what Jesus had to say about it:
Luke 20:17b
'The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone'?
1 Peter 2:4-5
Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, [5] you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1 Cor. 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Why don't you look at all of Paul teaches on this subject. Don't say: John said this or John said that. Why don't we look at what Paul has to say about it. You want us to study up on science. Well, this is a Christian board so you should do a little bit of study in the Bible. Here I will give you the whole passage on this:
1 Cor. 2:3-9
I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. [4] And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, [5] that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
[6] However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. [7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, [8] which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [9] But as it is written:
"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
1 Cor. 2:10-16
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. [11] For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. [13] These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [15] But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. [16] For "who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
Yes, as you judge me, so I will judge you. Study the Bible so you will be qualified to comment on it.
That is just not true at all. I do not think your looking at the Bible, you must be looking at the traditions of man. The Bible talks about natural things. But it is the Spirit of God that is our teacher.
James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
God will liberally give wisdom to those who ask. Not just wisdom about spiritual things, but also wisdom about natural things. How do you think Noah knew how to build a Ark, if God had not showed him how? God will show you the pattern.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
