Bible and science?

[dad]

That's another reason we know it's not a literal history. Earth wouldn't have existed without the sun.

God says the light of the sun will not be needed actually on earth. Trying to claim the sun was needed in the first days of creation while God Himself was right here hovering over the deep and etc...is horse manure.

It's a planet, not a city. Here, you confused different books of the Bible. (maybe you think the New Jerusalem is just a place on Earth?)

It comes to earth from above and we know the dimensions and materials. The confusion is not on my end.

Here, your error is to suppose God can't mention a real person in a parable. Why do you think that?

Not at all. The issue is whether you think the real person was real, the trees were real etc etc etc etc etc etc. Instead we see you talking about 'parables' as if that applies or changes the reality of the Scripture record. Then you accuse others of not being clear! be honest.

 

[The Barbarian]

As I told Myst- the language of Genesis does not warrant a parabolic message nor mere stories told!

If you think Jesus was telling "mere stories", it's easier to understand why you write the things you do. I realize you want to make Genesis into something else, but your revisions are not justified by your new beliefs about the "language of Genesis."

We have the genealogies from Adam to Christ.

In fact, we have two of them, which, if re-interpreted to be actual genealogies, are mutually contradictory. Which is another reason we know it's not a literal history.

We have the geologic evidence to validate the flood!

As you learned, neither scripture nor geology asserts a worldwide flood.

We have the linguistic root languages to verify Babel.

That's not what linguists say. They have evidence for human languages changing and diverging long before your new doctrines say there was an Earth. So that doesn't help you at all.

 

[The Barbarian]

God says the light of the sun will not be needed actually on earth. Trying to claim the sun was needed in the first days of creation while God Himself was right here hovering over the deep and etc...is horse manure.

Inventing new non-scriptural miracles to patch up the flaws in your story... is bull manure.

Your confusion, as noted before, was confusing the first book of the Bible with the last one.

(Dad suggests that if Adam was in a parable, he couldn't be real)

Adam was not a parable.

Not at all.

You should decide on one story and stick to it.

 

[steve78]

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?

I am not sure they contradict each other, it's just sometimes i feel that we don't always fully understand Gods word or scripture.

The earth is old, that is a provable scientific fact yet some will say its 6,000 years old according to the bible. Actually there is evidence in the bible that the earth is old.

I do think we sometimes need to go back an re-evaluate how we understand Gods word.

 

[steve78]

Parable? Adam was a parable..or real? Be clear.

The creation story includes what happened to created life and the world after being created.

The young earth creation nonsense falls apart once you reach day 6.

 

[dad]

If you think Jesus was telling "mere stories", it's easier to understand why you write the things you do. I realize you want to make Genesis into something else, but your revisions are not justified by your new beliefs about the "language of Genesis."

We are not talking about the parables of Jesus, but of creation and the first man, and your seeming attempt to somehow make it all some surreal 'parable'.

In fact, we have two of them, which, if re-interpreted to be actual genealogies, are mutually contradictory. Which is another reason we know it's not a literal history.

I assume you are talking about Gen 1 and two. Gen one was the created order, and by Gen 2 it was all finished already, and done with. Chap two looks at what was done, giving more details. To take that as some alternate contradictory account is to prove beyond any doubt you do not know what you are talking about.

As you learned, neither scripture nor geology asserts a worldwide flood.

Yes. They do. Learn that one.

That's not what linguists say. They have evidence for human languages changing and diverging long before your new doctrines say there was an Earth.

Your dates are religious figments of dark imagination with no basis in reality and no support other than belief based godless dreams. Period.


Really.

 

[dad]

The young earth creation nonsense falls apart once you reach day 6.

Thats nice.

 

[dad]

Inventing new non-scriptural miracles to patch up the flaws in your story... is bull manure.

Your confusion, as noted before, was confusing the first book of the Bible with the last one.

(Dad suggests that if Adam was in a parable, he couldn't be real)

The fact that God was here and hovered over the seas etc is bible 101.

Where did you think He was, shopping for evo books?

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. NIV

You should decide on one story and stick to it.

You should stop claiming Scripture is contradictory with opposing creation stories and simply believe it.

 

[dad]

Inventing new non-scriptural miracles to patch up the flaws in your story... is bull manure.

Your confusion, as noted before, was confusing the first book of the Bible with the last one.

(Dad suggests that if Adam was in a parable, he couldn't be real)




You should decide on one story and stick to it.

Don't interject the word parable randomly unless you state the parable. Adam was a man. Eve was a woman. You with me so far?? Both created by God...correct...real people...first people...correct?

 

[The Barbarian]

Don't interject the word parable randomly unless you state the parable.

Part of the problem, is you never listen.

Adam was a man.

O.K., you listened to me when I showed you that.

Eve was a woman.

And you listened when I told you that.

Keep it up. That's a good start.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Inventing new non-scriptural miracles to patch up the flaws in your story... is bull manure.

Your confusion, as noted before, was confusing the first book of the Bible with the last one.

(Dad suggests that if Adam was in a parable, he couldn't be real)

The fact that God was here and hovered over the seas

It doesn't say "seas." That's your modification of scripture.

In the time that was written, waters were a symbol for disorder and darkness. Bible 101.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. NIV

See. No seas.

You should stop trying to revise scripture, and simply believe it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You were misled, once again. Technically, the birdlike dinosaurs were mesotherms, capable of regulating their temperatures when active, and lowering their temperatures when inactive, somewhat like monotreme mammals today

Technically that is their hypothesis.

No. A hypothesis is merely an idea; an explanation for a phenomenon that remains to be validated. Things like Haversian canals in bone, avian respiratory systems, insulating feathers, and evidence of highly active lifestyles are all validating evidence for the hypothesis. When a hypothesis is repeatedly confirmed by such evidence, it is considered to be a theory.

Show where they have validated their idea by the scientific method.

Examination of dinosaur bone, discovery of airsacs in pneumatized dinosaur bone, discovery of insulating feathers on dinosaurs. Things like that.

"Bones that are in contact with air sacs exhibit a unique structure composed of very fine and densely packed fibers," Filippo Bertozzo, a researcher at the University of Bonn, said in a news release. "After it turned out that this was true both in modern birds and extinct dinosaurs, we proposed to name this special kind of bony tissue 'pneumosteum.'"

Follow-up studies revealed the presence of the unique bony tissue on the cervical vertebrae of gigantic sauropods."

HMM?

It's what you see in avian respiratory systems. At least many theropod dinosaurs had them.

Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals.

As you learned, dinosaurs had avian respiratory systems. That's not the only evidence for birds evolving from dinosaurs. A while back, they found a bit of intact heme (portion of a hemoglobin molecule) in T. rex bones. When examined, it turned out to be more like the heme of birds than of other reptiles.

andBTW alligator scales and bird feathers are similar but differing types of Beta Keratin.

Nope. Alligator scutes and bird feathers...

J Submicrosc Cytol Pathol. 2006 Jun-Sep;38(2-3):175-92.
Beta-keratin localization in developing alligator scales and feathers in relation to the development and evolution of feathers.
Alibardi L1, Knapp LW, Sawyer RH.
Author information
Abstract
Beta-keratins form large part of the corneous material of scales and feathers. The present immunocytochemical study describes the fine distribution of scale- and feather-keratins (beta-keratins) in embryonic scales of the alligator and in avian embryonic feathers. In embryonic scales of the alligator both scale-keratin and feather-keratin can be immunolocalized, especially in the subperiderm layer. No immunolabeling for feather keratin is instead present in the adult scale after the embryonic epidermis is lost. The embryonic epidermis of feather folds into barb ridges while subperiderm or subsheath cells are displaced into two barbule plates joined to the central ramus. Subperiderm cells react with an antibody against feather keratin and with lower intensity with an antibody against scale keratin. The axial plate is colonized by barb ridge vane cells, which surround subperiderm cells that become barb/barbule cells. The latter cells merge into a branched syncitium and form the micro ramification of feathers. The lengthening of barbule cells derives from the polymerization of feather keratin into long bundles coursing along the main axis of cells. Keratin bundles in feather cells are however ordered in parallel rows while those of scales in both alligator and birds are irregularly packed. This observation indicates a different modality of aggregation and molecular structure between the feather keratin of subperiderm cells versus that of barbule/barbs. Barb vane ridge cells among barbule cells degenerate at late stage of feather development leaving spaces that separate barbules. Barb vane ridge cells contain alpha-keratin and lipids, but not beta-keratin. Cells of marginal plates do not contain beta-keratin, and later degenerate allowing the separation of barbs. The latter become isolated only after sloughing of the sheath, which cells contain bundle of keratin not reactive for both scale- and feather-keratin antibodies. The study confirms morphological observations and shows that subperiderm or subsheath cells differentiate into barb and barbule cells. The morphogenesis of barb ridges has to be considered as an evolutionary novelty that permitted the evolution of feathers from a generalized archosaurian embryonic epidermis.

Also your long article just shows that while chemicals are near identical in differing creatures- they code for totally differing products when not tampered with.

See above. You were misled once again.

They have tried growing feathers in alligators and failed- all they got were elongated scales!

For the research study, the team performed a complete RNA transcriptome and DNA genomic analysis of developing chicks and alligators to identify their gene expression differences and the key genes in scale or feather formation.

Next, they placed these unique chicken feather genes within alligator eggs, carefully turning them on or off underneath their growing skin to reawaken an ancient programming that can turn scales into feathers.

These key circuits lead to the budding and elongation of appendages, follicle with stem cells and dermal papilla to allow cyclic regeneration, barb ridge formation with different branching forms, and specific feather keratin differentiation.

Some molecules could only induce one of the five criteria, e.g., the Sox2 gene can turn on feather budding and totally inhibits scale formation, while Grem1 can induce barb-like branching.

"Other molecules, such as retinoic acid or Sox18, have a greater ability to induce scutate scales to form feather-like skin appendages," said Chuong. "These feather-like appendages display all five criteria defining feathers, suggesting that they act at a higher hierarchical level in this evolutionary pathway."

These master regulators may have been the very first genes to adapt during ancient archosaur evolution and gain a newfound ability toward the making of today's complex feathers.

"Intriguingly, some of these phenotypes are similar to the unusual filamentous appendages found in the fossils of feathered dinosaurs."

Inspired by the "flying dragon," Ping Wu wants to challenge alligator scales to form feathers. By forced expression of sprouty and beta-catenin, genes they found to help convert chicken scales to feathers, they are able to cause the formation of elongated scales in alligator embryonic skin.

The study significantly adds to the growing list of genes and molecules known to induce feather-like structures in birds and has established a powerful new system in alligators to test and further explore the evolution of flight.
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-modern-genomics-alligator-scales-birdlike.html

The evidence was compelling and it certainly looked as if paleontologists finally had the evidencethey dreamed of to prove that birds were directly related to dinosaurs. But as if in a predictable fashion,not all scientists were convinced and some notable ornithologists were left very skeptical that the featherycovering was real. Even when a second specimen of Sinosauropteryx turned up again with the feathery covering, a dissenting few remained outspokenly critical."

Still the same old stuff. No feathers, but feathery like growths. Feduccias repeated experiments (you know the scientific method) showed that those fuzzy outgrowths were better answered by fraying decayed skin. If they can falsifiy his research I am all ears.

The tail of a 99-million-year-old dinosaur has been found entombed in amber, an unprecedented discovery that has blown away scientists.
Xing Lida, a Chinese paleontologist found the specimen, the size of a dried apricot, at an amber market in northern Myanmar near the Chinese border.
The remarkable piece was destined to end up as a curiosity or piece of jewelry, with Burmese traders believing a plant fragment was trapped inside.

As you see, dinosaur tail with feathers.

Physiologists are quite capable identifying features that warm-blooded organisms have. And we see them in fossil birds and dinosaurs."

And what are they in fossil bones? I am all ears!

Haversian canals, pneumatized bones with respiratory sacs, skeletons which indicate a vigorous running lifestyle. Things like that.

 

[dad]

Your confusion, as noted before, was confusing the first book of the Bible with the last one.

(Dad suggests that if Adam was in a parable, he couldn't be real)

Not true. You mentioned no lesson/parables with Adam. The issue is your claims of contrary accounts, and general disbelief of the flood and other bible history that was confirmed in the rest of the bible.

It doesn't say "seas." That's your modification of scripture.

No, that was me pointing out God hovering over the waters. It is fine that we do not call them seas if you like. Your disbelief that God could light the earth enough for plants before He created the sun is the issue.

In the time that was written, waters were a symbol for disorder and darkness. Bible 101.

Baloney. Water was water! The land was separated from that water...what you think the land can be 'parabalized' away also??! Ha. Have a look at these items mentioned in creation week... trees, water, animals, man, woman, seas, garden, and rivers. Now which of these, if any do you think was real? Which not real?

I think we already know you do not believe in a worldwide flood whereby eight people along with all the kinds of animals were saved i the world, is that correct? Be clear.

 

[trophy33]

I will stand by Scripture- "there was an evening and a morning a first "yom". God made it clear to protect us from deception.

Let us say that we, who accept an old universe and mainstream science, are the ones who are "deceived".

What exactly is the problem with our view regarding Christianity, salvation, daily life for God, fruit of Spirit, being born again etc.? If nothing major, what is the big issue for you with that?

 

[dad]

Let us say that we, who accept an old universe and mainstream science, are the ones who are "deceived".

What exactly is the problem with our view regarding Christianity, salvation, daily life for God, fruit of Spirit, being born again etc.? If nothing major, what is the big issue for you with that?

I would think the problem with accepting everything about your mom, her life, morals, etc without ever actually having met her is not a complete relationship.

To 'accept' all the bible says without knowing Him as creator is similar.

 

[trophy33]

I would think the problem with accepting everything about your mom, her life, morals, etc without ever actually having met her is not a complete relationship.

To 'accept' all the bible says without knowing Him as creator is similar.

Exactly. Thats why I asked "what is the issue with accepting mainstream science" in the situation we are real Christians, i.e. knowing God. What exactly is this serious "deception" endangering... what, exactly?

 

[trophy33]

5-years old girl:
"God made me."

A scientist:
"No, your mummy and daddy did".

5-years old girl:
"Scientists are liars!"

A scientist:
"You are a stupid primitive!"

-----

Sounds familiar? Both were right, but they took different points of view. Instead of understanding each other, they began to attack each other.

People in ancient times were like children regarding the universe around them. They used the little what they knew about it and, theologically, they were right regarding who made it and why. Its just not a 21st century' scientific story. Its their story.

 

[dad]

Exactly. Thats why I asked "what is the issue with accepting mainstream science" in the situation we are real Christians, i.e. knowing God. What exactly is this serious "deception" endangering... what, exactly?

That depends if you extend 'mainstream science' to include the origin 'sciences'. Those who believe the bible that Jesus created it all KNOW that the belief based fables preached in the name of science are not real science in any way. If we know God we know He is the creator!

 

[dad]

People in ancient times were like children regarding the universe around them. They used the little what they knew about it and, theologically, they were right regarding who made it and why. Its just not a 21st century' scientific story. Its their story.

Science today is telling their story. They misused the little they knew and mixed it with what they thought they knew. How they think creation came about is just a modern religious so called science (falsely) story.

 

[The Barbarian]

Baloney. Water was water!

There's no point in denying what it means. God brought forth order from disorder.

I think we already know you do not believe in a worldwide flood

Since the Bible doesn't say it was worldwide, your addition to the story is just your attempt to make it acceptable to you.

Whether there was an actual flood or not is not God's message. Instead of carping about your imaginative reworking of scripture, just listen to what He's actually telling you.