After Gen 6 where does the Bible address either the truth or untruth of science?

SkyWriting · Feb 8, 2013

Fascinated With God said:
If Gen 1-5 should be taken as a science textbook then to be consistent with this hypothesis there should be a pattern of statements throughout the Bible that demonstrate the untruth of science. I don't believe that there is a single verse after Gen 5 that can be construed as contradicting science. So then how do YEC's justify holding Gen 1-5 to such a completely different standard than the entire rest of the Bible?

I use the most clear one all the time (1.)
but I'll gladly show you the "Pattern"(2).

1. ""A host always serves the best wine first," he said. "Then, when everyone has had a lot to drink, he brings out the less expensive wine. But you have kept the best until now!"

This passage does not say that science is always wrong. It clearly illustrates that scientists will likely draw the wrong conclusions about past events.

Here's another one: "These people are not drunk, as some of you are assuming. Nine o'clock in the morning is much too early for that."

Again, the scientists (keenly astute and observant people grounded in detailed knowledge about the natural world who draw conclusions based on observations) are wrong.

(2.) The Pattern of commentary on scientists (keenly astute and observant people grounded in detailed knowledge about the natural world who draw conclusions based on observations)

1 John 4:5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint
of the world, and the world listens to them. ...

1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves
the world, the love of the Father is not in him. ...

John 17:14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. ...

John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn
the world, but to save the world through him. ...

John 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through
him, the world (science) did not recognize him. ...

James 4:4 You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world (science) is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of ...
1 John 2:16 For everything in the world--the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does--comes not from the Father but from the ...

1 Corinthians 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? ...

1 John 5:4 ..for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. ...

Colossians 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules ...

There are 600 references to the world.
These are from the first 15.
See any pattern?

SkyWriting · Feb 8, 2013

Fascinated With God said:
If a resurrection happened today in a lab while they were prepared and waiting for it to happen do you really think that they would not be able to find a whole host of data indicating that something miraculous happened?

People revive from deadly conditions in hospitals all the time.
No chart has ever listed "Divine Intervention" as an explanation.
So if God did intervene how would that differ from
the unexplained events we've already documented?

InSpiritInTruth · Feb 8, 2013

Fascinated With God said:
If that is so then there should be a consistent pattern of Biblical passages after Gen 5 that contradict science. But you read the OP already, so clearly you have ZERO examples to offer.

Here's a good example.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Ker-flush!

SkyWriting · Feb 8, 2013

Fascinated With God said:
SkyWriting disagrees with you:

lol...What game is this? No, he's correct. There are only 2 Creation Science groups I know of.
And 1000's of groups of Bible literalists.

I'm not a YEC though I can answer many questions about what YEC's believe because I used to follow their publishing's for a time. I even went to a meeting or two. As a result of what they teach, I have moved forward and no longer trust any estimations about when Creation week took place. Not the Pope's opinion or any scientist. Not even a Creation Scientist.

Fascinated With God · Feb 8, 2013

hedrick said:
The question was about Christianity conflicting with science. You could say that miracles conflict. But belief in miracles hasn't generally impeded or even particularly affected science. I believe most Christians think that the world follows rational laws reflecting the nature of God, but that God is free to intervene when he wants. As long as he doesn't intervene very often, it doesn't affect our ability to discover the laws.

My apologies for hitting you so hard on your second paragraph when your first paragraph is so true and important! (But there is most defintiely sceintific evidence of the Flood).

I completely agree with you that this ridiculous idea that miracles contradict science is pure hog wash.

Fascinated With God · Feb 8, 2013

InSpiritInTruth said:
Here's a good example.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Ker-flush!

Only three of the 18 translations on Bible.cc use the word science here, and they are all very old translations. No modern translations do this.

That ACTUAL word in Greek that is used is gnōsis. That means KNOWLEDGE, not science. In the full context the verse refers to FALSE KNOWLEDGE, mostly likely of a spiritual nature and not a scientific one.

It is only by taking great liberties with the translation that you can conclude that this verse has anything to do with modern science.

SkyWriting · Feb 8, 2013

Fascinated With God said:
My apologies for hitting you so hard on your second paragraph when your first paragraph is so true and important! (But there is most defintiely sceintific evidence of the Flood).

I completely agree with you that this ridiculous idea that miracles contradict science is pure hog wash.

Actually, that is the definition of a miracle.........so your comment is better stated that miracles never
happen. But we'd have to abandon our scriptures for that to happen. Luck to you on that.

1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? ...

Bible Search: miracles

Fascinated With God · Feb 8, 2013

SkyWriting said:
People revive from deadly conditions in hospitals all the time.
No chart has ever listed "Divine Intervention" as an explanation.
So if God did intervene how would that differ from
the unexplained events we've already documented?

Yeah, but they don't glow and burn sheets with radiation coming from their bodies when it happens.

As to science's ability to detect miracles, does science have 100% accuracy in detecting anything? The fact that miracles can be conclusively demonstrated in some cases is not in any way nullified by the fact that science is clearly incapable of verifying all miracles.

Fascinated With God · Feb 8, 2013

SkyWriting said:
Actually, that is the definition of a miracle.........

The definition of miracles is that they contradict science? That is nonsense. Miracles cannot be explained by science, but I challenge you to explain exactly what an electron is and what it's size is? If you can't then by your own defintion electrons contradict science.

SkyWriting said:
so your comment is better stated that miracles never
happen. But we'd have to abandon our scriptures for that to happen.

So you accuse me of being an atheist. Such insults are par for the course from you folks.

Why is it that so many Christians are so full of bigotry like this?

SkyWriting · Feb 8, 2013

Fascinated With God said:
I forgot to mention that the evidence of the Shroud of Turin is overwhelming. The probability that it is an authentic artificat is very high according to science. So science has a definitive answer to this question.

No. One conclusion (among many) was that it was most likely created in 200 AD.
That would explain why you didn't post the link.

The Shroud of Turin Website - Home Page

Fascinated With God · Feb 8, 2013

SkyWriting said:
No. One conclusion (among many) was that it was most likely created in 200 AD.
That would explain why you didn't post the link.

The Shroud of Turin Website - Home Page

I can't find it, it is not on the home page which is huge. I did find this however:

Of course, it is the burial shroud of Jesus, which was in contact with his body.
Marcel Alonso - Engineer and Geoscientist - France

Yes, the Shroud is very likely the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
Anthony R. Brach - Botanist - U.S.A.

I am 95% certain that the Shroud could be authentic.
Russ Breault -Researcher and Lecturer - U.S.A

I am firmly of the opinion that the Turin Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus.

Peter B. Carr - Physicist - England

My botanical findings bring it closest to the first part of the first sentence [FONT=Verdana,Italic][FONT=Verdana,Italic][that it is likely the burial cloth of Jesus Christ].
Avinoam Danin - Botanist and Author - Israel

[FONT=Verdana,Bold][FONT=Verdana,Bold]I absolutely believe the Shroud of Turin is the 1

[FONT=Verdana,Bold][FONT=Verdana,Bold][FONT=Verdana,Bold]st

[FONT=Verdana,Bold][FONT=Verdana,Bold]Century burial cloth of Jesus Christ,

[FONT=Verdana,BoldItalic][FONT=Verdana,BoldItalic]beyond a reasonable doubt!

[FONT=Verdana,Bold][FONT=Verdana,Bold]As a former FBI Special Agent and Laboratory Technician, I have been trained to objectively[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Bold][FONT=Verdana,Bold]follow the evidence and investigative leads.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold][FONT=Verdana,Bold]Joanna Emery - Author - Canada [/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
From a scientific point of view both my researches and the studies performed by the students (of Mechanical Engineering) in thesis with me ALL lead to a confirmation of the authenticity of the Shroud

Giulio Fanti - Engineer and Professor - Italy

2. What interested you about the Shroud?

It physically demonstrates a Reality beyond our current paradigm of understanding. It expands our perceptions of potential and the possibility, in doing so, I see it evolving science itself. Secondly, I see it as a witness to an event at the pinnacle of Human Potentiality, Ascension!
James A. Barrett - Researcher and Lecturer - U.S.A.

I only got a fraction of the way through the testimony of the scientists involved.

So where are you getting this negative evidence from? It is certainly not representative of the site as a whole. You have falsely portrayed the information contained in this site to make it sound like it concludes the exact opposite of what it actually does.

.

SkyWriting · Feb 8, 2013

Fascinated With God said:
The definition of miracles is that they contradict science? That is nonsense. Miracles cannot be explained by science, but I challenge you to explain exactly what an electron is and what it's size is? If you can't then by your own definition electrons contradict science.

Well they did contradict science so they had to change the concept to an electron cloud to match their research. The idea of a "bit" called an electron was contrary to the data.

"Science" says that things progress in an orderly fashion and are knowable.
The miracles documented in the scriptures are outside of knowable sources
and in that way, contradict what earthly reality is about.

So you accuse me of being an atheist. Such insults are par for the course from you folks.
Why is it that so many Christians are so full of bigotry like this?

Please report any such narrow, closed minded posts to the moderators.
We only want open minded people in this forum!

Fascinated With God · Feb 8, 2013

SkyWriting said:
Well they did contradict science so they had to change the concept to an electron cloud to match their research. The idea of a "bit" called an electron was contrary to the data.

You are clearly not at all up on this subject, but I'll let that pass.

SkyWriting said:
"Science" says that things progress in an orderly fashion and are knowable.

Paradigm shifts are by defintion discontinuous shifts in understanding. Your knowledge of the philosophy of science is 60 years out of date.

SkyWriting said:
The miracles documented in the scriptures are outside of knowable sources
and in that way, contradict what earthly reality is about.

Now you claim miracles contradict reality. That would mean that miracles make reality unreal. You are not making the slightest bit of sense.

InSpiritInTruth · Feb 8, 2013

Fascinated With God said:
It is only by taking great liberties with the translation that you can conclude that this verse has anything to do with modern science.

Worldly knowledge is mans science, (vain babblings)

How bout this one...

1 Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Does science base its knowledge on the sure foundation of faith in the Word of God, or does it base it's science on it's own worldly wisdom?

SkyWriting · Feb 8, 2013

Fascinated With God said:
Paradigm shifts are by definition discontinuous shifts in understanding. Your knowledge of the philosophy of science is 60 years out of date.

No doubt. I keep busy with my hands testing materials all day long.

Now you claim miracles contradict reality.

Same as before.

That would mean that miracles make reality unreal.

I'll go with that. The ones I've experience were indeed "unreal" events
in some ways. They were events that can have no earthly explanation.

Fascinated With God · Feb 8, 2013

SkyWriting said:
I'll go with that. The ones I've experience were indeed "unreal" events in some ways. They were events that can have no earthly explanation.

If your miracles were unreal that means they never really happened.

I think you should choose your words more wisely.

Fascinated With God · Feb 8, 2013

SkyWriting said:
"Science" says that things progress in an orderly fashion and are knowable.

I misread this statement. I apologize. It is still wrong, even more wrong infact. At least continuity played some role in the old philosophy of science.

Earth quakes. Are they continuous?

Evolution is mostly stagnant. Useless proliferation of random diversity that goes on for long periods of low selective pressure. Then a catastrophe strikes and suddenly most of the diversity is wiped out and only the fitest survive. Only during these short lived catastrophic events does evolution actually advance.

So evolution is also not a continuous process.

==========================================

Let's get to electrons again. As it turns out, whether an electron acts as a wave or a particle depends on whether or not it is observed. An unobserved electron passing through the double slits will form an interference pattern, whereas an observed electron will act like a particle. Even if the electron is not observed until just before hitting the detection screen, after having passed through the double slits, it still acts like a particle.

In other words, once the electron is observed it goes backwards in time to the projector source and starts it's path again as a particle.

If that is not a completely discontinuous phenomenon then what is?

.

Fascinated With God · Feb 8, 2013

InSpiritInTruth said:
Worldly knowledge is mans science, (vain babblings)

This refers to philosophy, not science. You could use a refresher on ancient history.

InSpiritInTruth said:
How bout this one...

1 Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

That can just as easily refer to worldly religious wisdom such as the materialistic creationism that you profess.

InSpiritInTruth said:
Does science base its knowledge on the sure foundation of faith in the Word of God, or does it base it's science on it's own worldly wisdom?

It is based on the study of God's handywork. You are pointing your accusing finger at God, not people.

InSpiritInTruth · Feb 8, 2013

Fascinated With God said:
This refers to philosophy, not science. You could use a refresher on ancient history.

That can just as easily refer to worldly religious wisdom such as the materialistic creationism that you profess.

It is based on the study of God's handywork. You are pointing your accusing finger at God, not people.

Your very good at making accusations and assumptions, and even twisting words and definitions around to fit into your carnal way of thinking.

Tell me how can mans science believe in God, or even prove an invisible God without faith in his Word?

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If mans science only believes in what it can see, and prove by it's own worldly carnal wisdom by the natural things of this world, then how can it believe or prove the invisible spiritual things of God?

SkyWriting · Feb 8, 2013

InSpiritInTruth said:
Your very good at making accusations and assumptions, and even twisting words and definitions around to fit into your way of thinking.

That sums it up well.

After Gen 6 where does the Bible address either the truth or untruth of science?

The Librarian

The Librarian

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Traditional Apostolic Methodist

Traditional Apostolic Methodist

The Librarian

Traditional Apostolic Methodist

Traditional Apostolic Methodist

The Librarian

Traditional Apostolic Methodist

The Librarian

Traditional Apostolic Methodist

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Traditional Apostolic Methodist

Traditional Apostolic Methodist

Traditional Apostolic Methodist

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency