Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
So we see the Bible claims that the universe consists of the non-visible and we find that is completely right on and you laugh? Could you tell me why you find that humorous?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And the Koran describes embryology.
Don't give me your personal interpretation of what you think it says. Also you are doing nothing more than what politicians do when they spin a story.
What you are claiming is like me saying: "Hey I can see the stars therefore I am an astrophysicist". You remind me of the pastor who claimed that he could prove with numbers in a name who was the Antichrist until someone pointed out to him that his formula also gave his name the number 666!
Now name me one scientific discovery the Bible made!
So we see the Bible claims that the universe consists of the non-visible and we find that is completely right on and you laugh? Could you tell me why you find that humorous?
Multiple lines of independent evidence. The Sun's internal dynamics come from our understanding of everything from the largest Einsteinian space-time warping to the smallest quantum tunnelling (the latter finally explaining the Sun's emission spectrum, something classical mechanics never could). The Earth's age comes from radiometry, geology, cosmology, etc.Is life a billion years younger than the sun? What do you base that on? How do you know that is true?
They could... but it's unlikely. The sheer abundance of independent bodies of evidence means that the probability that the Earth is indeed 4.54 billion years old is exceedingly high - not just 'best guess', but 'almost certainly the right figure'. The data come from two different angles, one lowering the maximum age (it can't be older than 4.54 billion) and one lowering the minimum age (it can't be younger than 4.54 billion). That all this evidence hones in on exactly the same value is called consilience, and it makes the evidence is phenomenally stronger and almost impossible to budge.We don't know how old earth really is exactly and it could be older even than the evidence shows because factors could change it even more than 30 million years.
This simply untrue. The consensus has been that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and has been this way for decades. What the first lifeform was is still under debate, but only a handful of hypothesis dominate the discussion. Whether bare RNA or polymers in a micelle bubble, we're looking at very primitive biology - it's not going to be a leprechaun. Even in uncertainty, we know the kinds of things it's going to be.It is a scientific consensus that we don't know how old the earth is or what life might have been on the earliest surface.
Yes. So? There are limits as to how early life can arise - you won't find primates prior to mammals, nor flowering plants before angiosperms. Exactly when flowering plants arose may be tweaked and refined, but the core order of events remains the same.Another factor that can not be ignored. We know that fossil evidence is sporadic at best and that some life forms that were thought to be arriving on the scene through the fossil evidence is found later to refute that time line and it is found that they were present millions and millions of years earlier than thought.
So we can see that fossil evidence can be at least 100 million years wrong and perhaps even longer.
Well, we know. We know the ancestry of modern flowering plants. We know that plants and animals are related by a common ancestor, which must necessarily precede both kingdoms.Science is restricted to known in the hand fossil evidence that can be extremely unsatisfactory. One can not claim that the Biblical scenario is not within time frame that "science says" when science obviously is wrong about the time frame by at least 100 million years if not more. It is reasonable to even imagine that life began on earth with plants that even included flowering plants and then all was wiped out except Cyanobacteria. Who knows. We don't have fossils that go back to the earliest time on earth.
The first and third are valid criticisms, but the second is chronological snobbery (do you really think that the ancient Hebrews must adhere to modern English nomenclature?), while the fourth is simply personal opinion.T[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]he Bible is wrong on four counts: [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
- [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Hares are not ruminants, and therefore do not chew the cud.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]From a scientific point of view, it is wrong to call a hare's foot a hoof.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A hare's foot is parted by digits.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The idea that hares are physically or spiritually unclean because they are thought to possess certain characteristics is nothing more than rank superstition.[/FONT]
So we see the Bible claims that the universe consists of the non-visible and we find that is completely right on and you laugh? Could you tell me why you find that humorous?
Before modern science, intelligent, well-informed readers of the Bible thought that the Earth was the motionless center of the universe, surrounded by spheres carrying the planets (including the sun). They thought that disease was caused by demon possession, bad air and the malign influence of the stars. They thought that the universe was a few thousand years old. They thought that unicorns existed. They thought that bad luck was the result of witchcraft.Ok, examples please.
Has there ever been a time or place when most people didn't think the universe contained more than could be seen? How is the Bible telling us any more than Greek myths here?So we see the Bible claims that the universe consists of the non-visible and we find that is completely right on and you laugh? Could you tell me why you find that humorous?
It only claims non-visible, that is along way from discribing what is non-visible! It is so general anything we find could fit it, so it is useless. It doesn't help in our knowage of the universe, you only claim it after others have done the work to make it look like the Bible is current.
Has there ever been a time or place when most people didn't think the universe contained more than could be seen? How is the Bible telling us any more than Greek myths here?
Please think about what you just said. It claims it is non-visible but doesn't describe what is non-visible, but it says that what holds the universe together is non-visible which is describing what its function is. That is pretty accurate information.
I didn't claim that it helped in the acquiring of the knowledge but if those who were doing the science had looked at that they may have known about the atom long before they did. The fact that the Bible puts forth this information is what is significant.
Before modern science, intelligent, well-informed readers of the Bible thought that the Earth was the motionless center of the universe, surrounded by spheres carrying the planets (including the sun). They thought that disease was caused by demon possession, bad air and the malign influence of the stars. They thought that the universe was a few thousand years old. They thought that unicorns existed. They thought that bad luck was the result of witchcraft.
Non-visible explains the atom? Your kidding right?
I can see it now, scientists reading the bible and saying; ok, we need to find something that is non-visible and we will have it, because the bible says so.
Also, you never answered my question; do you accept the scientific evidence in regards to the age of the universe and the age of the earth?
That is how they found paths in the seas. Although, we have to have the technology to find out that there are non-visible elements and that they make up the universe.
Are you asking if I am YEC.
No. Nor have you.Have you ever met a Christian who admitted that it's quite possible their beliefs could be wrong?
I agree with that.
But let me ask you something that puzzles me. How does one parse what parts of the Bible are supposed to be literal and what parts are not? I mean, if Genesis isn't supposed to be read literally, does that also apply to anything/everything else in the Bible? How do you know?
I believe that it is literal.
I thought science was based on factual evidence about what is known.Actually, that's the very foundation of scientific progress: changing one's mind. I used to know the Earth was flat and Santa came down chimneys - now I un-know it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?