Creationism will only destroy science

[cana333]

Gallop has been polling on this question since 1982 and the numbers haven't changed much since then.

To be accurate the question was:
"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?"
and the two views held by 40% and 55% of scientists respectively were:
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
Although it uses the Gallup questions, I don't believe this particular poll was done by Gallup. I could be mistaken though.

I admit i dont understand the science of evolution, but there is one thing in particular which baffles me and it's this: How can a human being, or any other creature for that matter, survive for any length of time with partially developed organs ie, heart lungs etc.?

 

[gluadys]

I admit i dont understand the science of evolution, but there is one thing in particular which baffles me and it's this: How can a human being, or any other creature for that matter, survive for any length of time with partially developed organs ie, heart lungs etc.?

It doesn't. Nor does the theory of evolution require it to. The single chamber heart of a fish is simpler in form than the four-chambered heart of a mammal, but it is not a partially developed organ. It is fully functional as a heart.

The same applies to other limbs and organs.

 

[cana333]

It doesn't. Nor does the theory of evolution require it to. The single chamber heart of a fish is simpler in form than the four-chambered heart of a mammal, but it is not a partially developed organ. It is fully functional as a heart.

The same applies to other limbs and organs.

Mmmm.............I'm curious to know if you christian evolutionists beleive that humans and the earth etc. could evolve without God.

 

[sfs]

Mmmm.............I'm curious to know if you christian evolutionists beleive that humans and the earth etc. could evolve without God.

I don't believe that anything could exist without God, much less evolve. That doesn't mean that God has to suspend the usual rules by which his creation operates to for evolution to happen. In other words, no miracles required (as far as I know).

 

[gluadys]

Mmmm.............I'm curious to know if you christian evolutionists beleive that humans and the earth etc. could evolve without God.

No, if we believed that we would not be Christian or even theists.

 

[theoddamerican]

In revelations 22:19 it says that if any man adds to or takes stuff out of the Bible the are cursed or woe to that person. If you are a translater and a christian you have to know the bible and what it says. I am pretty sure that the scribes that translate the bible know this verse well. So when you have that guy and countless others translating from the manuscripts they try to get it right. then they have other people review what they have done and so on. In the 1940s they discovered the dead sea scrolls that verified that what they were translating was accurate and the same as what they had thousands of years ago. That is what I believe and I would encourage you to check out the dead sea scrolls cuz they are really cool. Also I will start getting my information together about the lies in the text books and get it to you with as much info with each one. I am not trying to offend you in anyway but if it is the truth I would like to share it with you and everyone else that is willing to read it.

 

[gluadys]

In revelations 22:19 it says that if any man adds to or takes stuff out of the Bible the are cursed or woe to that person.

Actually, John said that about the Book of Revelation. It was never said of the bible, because the bible as such did not exist yet. Remember that the bible is a collection of many books. It is an error to attribute something said of one of its books to the whole collection.

If you are a translater and a christian you have to know the bible and what it says. I am pretty sure that the scribes that translate the bible know this verse well. So when you have that guy and countless others translating from the manuscripts they try to get it right. then they have other people review what they have done and so on. In the 1940s they discovered the dead sea scrolls that verified that what they were translating was accurate and the same as what they had thousands of years ago. That is what I believe and I would encourage you to check out the dead sea scrolls cuz they are really cool.

You are conflating many different ideas here. The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with translation. What they verified is that the contemporary Hebrew (ie. not translated) text did not vary a lot in the thousand years between the time the scrolls were written and the Masoretic text was established in the middle ages.

That is not to say it did not vary at all. There are many differences between the two texts, but most of them are minor things like variations in spelling. Also, the Dead Sea scrolls do not cover the whole Old Testament, so there are still many passages where we have variant readings.

Translation is a different thing. Because no two languages map perfectly onto each other, there are always places where several different translations can be possible. So all translations involve some interpretation of the original text.

And that is just at the level of word choice. Interpretation in a larger sense e.g. is this text an unvarnished report of an event or embroidered with poetical flourishes or political or theological bias? --interpretation at this level is matter of deeper study still.

Also I will start getting my information together about the lies in the text books and get it to you with as much info with each one. I am not trying to offend you in anyway but if it is the truth I would like to share it with you and everyone else that is willing to read it.

Good, because this charge is often thrown about without being backed up. And you would be doing the scientific and academic communities a favour too as they have a significant interest in seeing that science is taught correctly.

 

[seebs]

Someone once suggested to me a notion; that Creation, rather than being a single point event after which everything done been created, is an ongoing act of will. To speak of things happening "without God" is meaningless.

To believe such a thing is to believe that every last atom is there, not just because it used to be there, but because right now, God wishes it to continue.

This pulls the notion of Creation out of the untouchable past and into the immediate present. It also, more unambiguously than anything, answers for once and all the question of "Does God love you?" If God did not love you, you would not exist.

 

[theoddamerican]

With the dead sea scrolls I just wanted to say that they were careful with the translation and to make every possible effort to be accurate. The human language has changed alot through the years and some words do mean other things. So the true meaning to some things could mean something else. Later tonight if I get a chance I will write down some of the verses that are in the bible about the science in the bible and you can come up with your own conclusion. I think they are pretty cool. Thank you for telling me a little more about the scrolls I have started researching them about a month ago and found out alot of cool things. Also if I get the chance I will start telling you about the things in the text books. Also I was wondering what you believed in weather you just believe in evolution or if you believe in God also or what.

 

[theoddamerican]

Here is one bit of information that I promised. I will be sending more your way when I get it. The topic here is vestigial organs and I have listed a few. If you still believe afterwords Go to Drdino.com and talk to kent hovind. He will pay to have your vestigial organs removed.Vestigial Organs According to this hypothesis, as we evolved from other animals, some of our organs were not needed any more. These organs supposedly remained in the human body and are still there today in the form of vestigial (useless) organs. The existence of such useless organs is reputedly evidence that we descended from some lower life-forms. This idea was invented in the early 19th century, when our medical knowledge was far less than today. It was based on ignorance: if the function of a body-part was not known, that part was simply labeled "useless," instead of researching it further. This was wrong thinking and hindered scientific development, since just because we don’t understand the function of something doesn’t mean it is useless. The real question is, do we really have vestigial organs? In the last century, many organs were called useless. Robert Wiedersheim, a German follower of Darwin, listed 86 vestigial organs in his book written in 1895. The list contained among other things: valves in the veins, the pineal gland, the thymus, some bones in our toes and even our lachrymal (tear) glands. Some textbooks from 1960 list over 200 useless organs in the human body. According to a Hungarian medical encyclopedia published in 1967 in Budapest, there are 180 vestigial organs in our body. As science advanced, more and more was learnt about our bodies and organs, and we are now at the point where we cannot call any organ vestigial. All organs formerly classified as vestigial have at least one useful function we now know of! Unfortunately many textbooks still list vestigial organs as a proof of evolution. Here are a few of our "useless" organs, whose function is now known: The Appendix This is the classic vestigial organ of evolutionists. It sometimes becomes swollen, and it was noticed that people can survive if it is removed, and was therefore labeled as useless.We now know that it plays a role in antibody production and protects our intestines from infection. The appendix lessens the chances of a person getting leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, cancer of the colon and cancer of the ovaries. The Tonsils These organs in the throat protect us from infections. The Coccyx These are vertebrae found at the bottom of the spine. It was once thought to be useless, a remnant of a tail from our evolutionary past. It has since been discovered that some important muscles attach to it, namely the levator ani and coccygeus. Without it, our pelvic organs would just fall down, we wouldn’t be able to walk, sit upright or have bowel movement. The Thymus This "worthless" organ has been discovered to play an important role in the development of the immune system. In this gland lymphocyte and antibody production takes place. Without it, our immune system would not develop properly. Pineal Gland Produces vital hormones, such as melatonin. It also affects the functions of other endocrine organs. Thyroid Gland Produces the hormone thyroxin that controls metabolism and growth. It’s deficiency at birth causes cretinism. Pituitary Gland It is the master endocrine gland which controls and stimulates almost all the other endocrine glands in the body. It ensures proper growth of the skeletal system and control the water balance of the body. It’s malfunctioning causes gigantism, Cushing’s syndrome, dwarfism, diabetes insipidus, acromegaly, etc. There are a large number of other body parts which at one time or another were called useless, but whose function is now known. We can therefore conclude that all our organs have a special purpose they were designed for by an intelligent Creator. Taking this discussion a bit further, we can find more problems with the theory of vestigial organs. Let us suppose we really had some useless organs, would this prove evolution? Evolution is supposed to be upward change in complexity from simple to complex. Evolutionists cannot point to any new or developing (nascent) organs to replace our "vestigial" ones. So this idea would only prove the opposite of evolution: devolution! We would be evolving downward by losing functions of organs; and with fewer useful organs, our bodies would be losing complexity and become simpler. As we have seen, scientists know of not one vestigial organ in our bodies. And even if there were one, it would only show that we are degenerating, certainly not evolving.

 

[theoddamerican]

Here is another Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, Ramapithecus, The Australopithecines We have all seen drawings depicting ape-men. Usually the highly imaginative artist depicts the whole family. They have bulging jaws, receding foreheads, hairy bodies and they return from hunting with sticks in their hands. Their back is curved as one might expect from a half-ape half-man creature. This is being taught in school, without mentioning those less known parts of the story that might refute the evolutionary theory, the university-professor-from-bacteria-in-billions-of-years theory. What are these drawings based on? Let's look more closely at some famous "ape-men". Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii) Nebraska man. Sketch by Amedee Forestier, Illustrated London News, 1922. Nebraska man's tooth. Drawing published in Illustrated London News on June 24, 1922. In 1922 Harold Cook found an unusual molar tooth in Nebraska. Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn, who had been working at that time for the Natural History Museum in New York, firmly declared that it must have belonged to a half ape-half man creature. Many scientists and specialists agreed. And America became the proud owner of a totally American ape-man. Henry Osborn and his colleagues could not decide whether to call it an ape-like man or rather a man-like ape. In spite of this, they went on reconstructing a jaw, then a skull, and finally a complete skeleton. Afterwards they added facial features, muscles and presented this man-like fabrication in the Illustrated London News. Nebraska man lasted 5 years. After subsequent discoveries in 1927, it became obvious that the unusual tooth from which a whole man had been built, was not from an ape-man but from an extinct wild pig. In 1927, Science magazine published a one and a half page article by Gregory W.K., where he withdrew his statement that the Nebraska man was a hominid, and acknowledged that he was based on a pig's tooth.[1] Neanderthal Man (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis) In 1856, some human remains were discovered in a cave in the Neander Valley of Germany near Düsseldorf. A skeleton found in the same place in 1908 was displayed in museum exhibitions and textbook illustrations during the following decades as the predecessor of modern man who lived some 40-50 thousand years ago. These illustrations portrayed the Neanderthal Man with a bestial face, thick neck, humped back and bent knees. In 1957 these remains were closely examined with more sophisticated instruments, and scientists concluded that the skeleton most probably belonged to an elderly person suffering from acute bone disease, hence his humped back and skeletal malformation. It is possible that less vitamin D entered their body due to cave dwelling and further weakened their bone structure. We can infer from the rest of the human remains found in the Neander Valley, that arthritis was common in that specific tribe. Otherwise they walked upright, were intelligent, had developed artistic sense and ceremonial burial. Examining their skull volume, it appeared they had a brain capacity of 1600 cm3. Apes have brain capacities in the 450-650 cm3 range, while modern men in the 1000-1500 cm3 range. Neanderthal men were true Homo Sapiens. Ramapithecus Ramapithecus remains: some teeth and jaw fragments. This is how Ramapithecus was reconstructed using extraordinary imagination. In 1932 Louis Leakey and his collaborators found some teeth and a few other jaw fragments in South-West Kenya, which they assembled in such a way as to resemble a human jaw. Apes' jaws are U-shaped and men's are parabolic. They assembled the pieces along a parabolic arch and claimed that this jaw belonged to one of man's earliest ape-like ancestors. This is how Ramapithecus was born, said to be a transitional creature between the higher apes and man. A full jaw was discovered in 1977 which belonged to a similar individual as the pieces found in 1932. The jaw was U-shaped, so it belonged to an ape. We cannot make assumptions about brain capacity or an upright walking position on jaw fragments alone [2][3]. Ramapithecus also turned out to have no relation whatsoever with man.[4] Roger Lewin, in his book Bones of Contention, on page 86 wrote: The dethroning of Ramapithecus—from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982—is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins. The Australopithecines Australopithecus skull. The crest on the top of the skull is a feature of higher apes which is not present in the case of humans. The skull's volume is barely larger than that of a chimpanzee. Reconstruction of Australopithecus boisei . The general term Australopithecines refers to a wide variety of ape bones excavated in Africa. Anthropologists assert these are the remains of prehistoric men who lived between 1 and 5 million years ago. The most famous among these findings is Lucy, and scientists consider it to be the oldest ape-man specimen. This 40% complete skeleton was discovered by Donald Johanson in Hadar, Ethiopia, in 1974. It was also labeled as one of the "missing links". Since then, Lucy has been presented in numerous scientific publications and schools, as a prominent representative of prehistoric men. Lucy was a mature female about 25 years old. Her hind leg bones and her pelvis show that she was able to stand on two legs for a slightly longer time than today's apes, but it is certain she did not walk upright. She was about one meter high and she weighed around 28 kg. Her very long front arms and short legs show she probably walked on her knuckles, or to put it another way, she was an ape. Other australopithecine bones have similar characteristics to those of the mostly tree-dwellling apes. The junction of the spinal cord and the skull is farther forward on humans then on apes. This is what points to the upright stance. The skull base of Australopithecines has similar characteristics to the skull base of apes. Australopithecines belonged to an extinct ape species, one similar to the bonobo chimpanzees and orangutans, and had very few humanoid characteristics. By comparing Australopithecines, chimpanzee and human skulls we can see that Australopithecines were apes, not humans. See below in the References section [5] Sir Solly Zuckerman’s opinion about the Australopithecines written in 1954. His scientific work and his renown exceeded his colleagues'. He was the Chief Scientific Advisor to Her Majesty's Government, and in 1971 he was elevated to the Peerage as Lord Zuckerman. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------We now know the truth about most of these ape-men. They were either apes or men. They were a mixture of the two only when somebody assembled together ape and human bones. In his "APES" article in Scientific American, Vol.226, p.101, Robert B. Eckhardt from Penn. State University wrote: ...there would appear to be little evidence to suggest that several different hominoid species are represented among the Old World dryopithecine fossils... (Ramapithecus, Oreopithecus, Limnopithecus, Kenyapithecus). They themselves nevertheless seem to have been apes morphologically, ecologically, and behaviorally.What is the explanation that schools still teach these (already known to be false) ape-men proofs, as basics of evolution and proven truths? References 1. Gregory W.K., Science, 1927, 66:579-81.: "Hesperopithecus apparently not an ape nor a man." 2. Adrienne L. Zihlman and Jerold M. Lowerstein, Natural History, August/September 1979, p.86: "How did Ramapithecus… reconstructed from teeth and jaws—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward-marching procession ?" 3. David R. Pilbeam, The Evolution of Man, 1970: "Locomotion, like body size, cannot be inferred without some post-cranial bones. It would be unwise to speculate about Ramapithecus’ locomotion from a knowledge solely of its jaws and teeth !" 4. R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p.84: "Subsequent fossil finds proved Sarich right: Ramapithecus is no longer considered a candidate for human ancestor." 5. Lord Solly Zuckerman, "Definitely an ape", Beyond the Ivory Tower, page 78: "The australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." also see this web sitehttp://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc05.htm

 

[theoddamerican]

Scientific Principle Biblical Reference Time had a beginning 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Corinthians 2:72 The universe had a beginning Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, etc.3 The universe was created from the invisible Hebrews 11:34 The dimensions of the universe were created Romans 8:38-395 The universe is expanding Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:16 Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory) Genesis 2:3-47 The universe is winding down and will "wear out" Psalms 102:25-278 Describes the correct order of creation Genesis 1 (see Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation) Number of stars exceeds a billion Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:229 Every star is different 1 Corinthians 15:4110 Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups Job 38:3111 Light is in motion Job 38:19-2012 The earth is controlled by the heavens Job 38:331 Earth is a sphere Isaiah 40:2213 Job 26:1014 At any time, there is day and night on the Earth Luke 17:34-3515 Earth is suspended in space Job 26:716 Earth Sciences Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described Genesis 1:2-9, Psalms 104:6-9, Proverbs 3:19, Proverbs 8:27-29, Job 38:4-8, 2 Peter 3:517 Water cycle described Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job 36:27-2818 Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea 2 Samuel 22:1619 Vents exist on the bottom of the sea Job 38:1620 Ocean currents in the sea Psalms 8:821 Air has weight Job 28:2522 Winds blow in circular paths Ecclesiastes 1:623 Biology The chemical nature of human life Genesis 2:7, 3:1924 Life of creatures are in the blood Leviticus 17:1125 The nature of infectious diseases Leviticus 13:4626 Importance of sanitation to health Numbers 19, Deuteronomy 23:12-13, Leviticus 7-927

 

[gluadys]

Here is one bit of information that I promised. I will be sending more your way when I get it. The topic here is vestigial organs and I have listed a few.

First, you need to take more time with your research. You have given me a topic. But you have not given me any of the other information I asked for: specifically---

What is the name of the textbook you found this topic in. Dr. Dino's site is not a textbook.

Who published this textbook and in what year?

What schoolboard is using this textbook?



Second, do you know the correct definition of "vestigial"? Many people mistakenly believe that "vestigial" means "useless". But many vestigial organs have uses.

The correct meaning is "reduced in size and/or function".

As we have seen, scientists know of not one vestigial organ in our bodies. And even if there were one, it would only show that we are degenerating, certainly not evolving.

This would be true only if one is using an incorrect definition of "vestigial".

You are also using an incorrect definition of "evolution".

You can't very well argue that science is wrong, if you haven't taken the time to learn what science actually says.

Dr. Dino will not help you there. He is well-known for misrepresenting and misunderstanding science. You can be pretty much sure that if Kent Hovind says it, it is not science.

 

[gluadys]

Here is another Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, Ramapithecus, The Australopithecines

You may as well stop cutting and pasting stuff that you don't understand yourself. Did you not notice that not a single textbook is mentioned in this article?

Remember, your allegation is that science text books teach things that have been proven wrong as fact.

And the science textbook thing, half the things they teach in the text books have been proven wrong but they still teach them. They teach things that have been proven wrong as fact.

So, it is not enough to show that a scientific idea has been proven wrong. You must show that it is published in a text book and that schools are using that textbook.

If you cannot show that a school is actually using a textbook with wrong information in it, you are just whistling in the wind.


Also did you notice that the picture of Nebraska man was published in newspapers? Newspapers are not textbooks. They are not scientific journals. Real scientific discoveries are published in scientific journals where the articles are subjected to peer review before they are accepted for publication.

Newspapers and magazines often publish trash science or overly sensational stories about science. TV too. You have to double check any such story against what is published in the professional journals and standard texts.

Other than Nebraska Man, all the other hominids named in the article are genuine fossil finds. You can learn more about them with simple google searches as well as researching real science texts.

 

[notto]

vestigial (useless).

You should consult a dictionary. Your copy and pasted argument argument is based on an incorrect definition of a word. You should correct the source who gave you this bad information at once.

You are a great creationist.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

a kind word of advice to: theoddamerican

no one is going to take the time to read your blocky postings unless you use the enter key to create paragraphs.

there is simply to much good, well written, well formatted, well presented material here to spend time re formatting these postings so that they can be read.

let me help by doing one for you so you can see the differences. this is just the enter key, there are other keys you might use as well to help us read your postings.

Scientific Principle Biblical Reference

Time had a beginning
2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Corinthians 2:72

The universe had a beginning
Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, etc.3

The universe was created from the invisible
Hebrews 11:34

The dimensions of the universe were created
Romans 8:38-395

The universe is expanding
Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:16

Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory)
Genesis 2:3-47

The universe is winding down and will "wear out"
Psalms 102:25-278

Describes the correct order of creation
Genesis 1 (see Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation)

Number of stars exceeds a billion
Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:229

Every star is different
1 Corinthians 15:4110

Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups
Job 38:3111

Light is in motion
Job 38:19-2012

The earth is controlled by the heavens
Job 38:331

Earth is a sphere
Isaiah 40:2213 Job 26:1014

At any time, there is day and night on the Earth
Luke 17:34-3515

Earth is suspended in space
Job 26:716

Earth Sciences Earth began as a waterworld.
Formation of continents by tectonic activity described Genesis 1:2-9, Psalms 104:6-9, Proverbs 3:19, Proverbs 8:27-29, Job 38:4-8, 2 Peter 3:517

Water cycle described
Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job 36:27-2818

Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea
2 Samuel 22:1619

Vents exist on the bottom of the sea
Job 38:1620

Ocean currents in the sea
Psalms 8:821

Air has weight
Job 28:2522

Winds blow in circular paths
Ecclesiastes 1:623

Biology The chemical nature of human life
Genesis 2:7, 3:1924

Life of creatures are in the blood
Leviticus 17:1125

The nature of infectious diseases
Leviticus 13:4626

Importance of sanitation to health
Numbers 19, Deuteronomy 23:12-13, Leviticus 7-927

it is also necessary to reference material when you cut and paste from a web document.

from: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html

see original for a table version.


thank you.

 

[gluadys]

Scientific Principle Biblical Reference Time had a beginning 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Corinthians 2:7

I am not too sure how far you can press something like this. It is true that one of the unique features of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim world view is that the universe is not eternal. Many other world-views, including some popular among the Greeks held that the world was eternal but their gods had beginnings. That is the opposite of the biblical view that God is eternal and the world had a beginning.

However, the Greeks also held that the gods changed the world from a formless chaos into a created order (much as the bible describes God doing in Genesis 1) so even though they held the universe in general as being eternal, they did look to a beginning of the world order and might well have used much the same language that Paul does here. e.g. "before the gods were born..."

An interesting side note here is that atheist scientists were very reluctant to support the hypothesis of a big bang because it suggested a beginning to time, and until then, nothing in science contradicted the idea that the universe is eternal. The idea that the universe and time have a starting point was rejected by scientists like Fred Hoyle because it sounded too much like creation.

2 The universe had a beginning Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, etc.

Same as above. Note that the biblical principle here is that God is eternal, the universe is created and has a beginning.

That is all.

It would be an error to say that these verses support the scientific theory of the big bang. They say nothing about when and how the universe came into being. Only that it did come into being at God's command. The bible does not teach that the universe appeared 13.7 billion years ago for example. It does not contradict this scientific fact, but it does not teach it either.




3 The universe was created from the invisible Hebrews 11:3

4 The dimensions of the universe were created Romans 8:38-39

5 The universe is expanding Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:1


This is a prime example of how those who claim to adhere to a literal interpretation of scripture really do not, but import ideas from modern science into scripture and impose a non-literal interpretation on the text that it will not bear when you truly look at what the text actually says.

Not one of these texts speaks about the universe expanding. The phrase used is "stretched out the heavens". And this is not the same thing at all.

For example the psalmist and Isaiah often complete the phrase "stretched out the heavens" with "like a tent". The universe does not expand "like a tent".

In several cases "stretched out the heavens" is paralleled with a phrase such as "spread out the earth" or "laid the foundations of the earth". So if "stretched out the heavens" refers to the expanding universe "spread out the earth" logically refers to an expanding planet. "laid the foundations" by contrast, suggests a stable, unmoving earth, over which a stable, unexpanding heaven is stretched out like a tent.

Finally, in all cases, the scripture uses a past tense implying that the work of stretching out the heavens was completed before the creation of humankind, or indeed any species. So even if it could be referred to expanding the universe, it refers to an expansion that was halted sometime before humans existed. But as we know the expansion of the universe has not halted and is, in fact, accelerating.

Associating the idea of an expanding universe with the biblical phrase "stretched out the heavens" is sheer sloppy reading of scripture. Any one who claims to adhere to a literalist interpretation of scripture should be thoroughly ashamed to present this argument.

6 Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory) Genesis 2:3-4

No it doesn't. It supports a static universe that does not expand. The steady-state theory was developed to explain the expansion of the universe, and no one who had a hand in writing the bible had any idea that the universe was expanding.

A static universe contradicts the steady-state theory because the steady state theory is a theory of an expanding universe. But as seen above, the scriptures do not support an expanding universe either. So they were not written with the purpose of opposing steady-state theory.

For millennia Jews and Christians supported creation and the beginning of the universe in time without adding in the concept of an expanding universe. That is also what the scriptures are doing.

An expanding universe is consistent with a created universe, but it is also a new scientific discovery not found in scripture.

7 The universe is winding down and will "wear out" Psalms 102:25-27

This is a truism. What has a beginning in time will age and have an end in time, even something as apparently timeless as the universe. One does not need to appeal to science to see the logic of this, and so, it cannot be cited as an example of scripture revealing modern science.

8 Describes the correct order of creation Genesis 1 (see Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation) Number of stars exceeds a billion Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22

No, the factual order of creation is quite different from the biblical one. For example, stars existed long before the sun and moon, but the bible shows them being created simultaneously. Neither verse cited is specific as to "billions". They only suggest "very many" and "cannot be counted". Given the state of mathematical conceptions at the time, that could be as few as 50 million or it could extend into quadrillions. If they really cannot be counted as Jeremiah suggests, it could mean there are an infinite number of stars. It cannot be pinpointed to billions. It cannot even be said for sure that one billion is a lower limit.

9 Every star is different 1 Corinthians 15:41

"in glory" yes. This does not say that the difference in glory implies physical difference. Identical twins can still be different in glory. Same goes for stars.

10 Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups Job 38:31

Sheesh! Nobody learns history anymore. The influences referred to here are the influences of the stars on human affairs. Remember the wise men were led to the infant Jesus because they could read the signs of the stars. How did they know the new star signified a new king of the Jews rather than a new king of Siam?

I was informed by another creationist that ancient Hebrew did not even have a word for "gravity", so you cannot read gravitational forces into the OT.

11 Light is in motion Job 38:19-20

Sloppy reading again. Actually it says the opposite, for God asks Job "Where is the way the light dwelleth?...that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?"


In this image, the light is not moving. It is dwelling in an unmoving house. To get to the light, Job would have to know the path that leads to the house where light dwells. Job would have to go to the light. It is not moving to meet him.

12 The earth is controlled by the heavens Job 38:33

This is referring to God's rule over creation. Has nothing to do with the physical heaven.

13 Earth is a sphere Isaiah 40:22 Job 26:10

Both verses refer to a circle. In fact, the KJV translates the Job citation as "compassed" which means to draw a circle or circuit. (Remember your basic math tool set includes a compass for drawing circles.) The same idea is found in Proverbs 8:27 "when he set a compass (i.e."drew a circle") on the face of the deep."

In Isaiah, this verse includes the idea of the heavens stretched out like a tent to dwell in. Do you stretch out a tent over a ball or over a flat circular piece of ground? (Assuming a round tent to match the contours of the circle.) If the heaven/tent was stretched to fit the circumference of a sphere, half of the inhabitants of the earth would be outside the shelter of the heaven/tent. They would not be able to dwell in it.

14 At any time, there is day and night on the Earth Luke 17:34-35

I see nothing here that suggests this conclusion.

15 Earth is suspended in space Job 26:7

Actually on or over the abyss. The concept of outer space was unknown before the 16th century. This biblical verse alludes to the earth being set on foundations, but the foundations themselves are not anchored to anything, as the watery abyss (the waters below the firmament in Gen. 1:7) is all there is below the earth and its foundations.

16 Earth Sciences Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described Genesis 1:2-9, Psalms 104:6-9, Proverbs 3:19, Proverbs 8:27-29, Job 38:4-8, 2 Peter 3:5

But earth did not begin as a water world. It began as a sphere of molten rock. Even when water fell on the earth, it immediately vaporized until the crust had cooled enough to retain liquid water.

How you force the idea of tectonic movement into these verses is beyond me.

17 Water cycle described Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job 36:27-28

Well none describes the full water cycle, but they come close. After all, some basic science is readily observable. I don't know that they understood evaporation and its connection with the hydrological cycle.

18 Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea 2 Samuel 22:16

What translation says "valleys"? None of mine do.

19 Vents exist on the bottom of the sea Job 38:16

No. No vents in any of my translations. You have to add them into the text to put them there.

20 Ocean currents in the sea Psalms 8:8

This is weird. Given that people did sail the sea in those days, of course they would be aware of currents, but this text does not seem to be referring to them.

21 Air has weight Job 28:25

I doubt this means what you think it means. "Winds" in biblical use does not equate to "air" in physics.

22 Winds blow in circular paths Ecclesiastes 1:6

This only says that the winds blow from different directions. It does not indicate a grasp of meteorology.

23 Biology The chemical nature of human life Genesis 2:7, 3:19

You have got to be kidding. A reference to dust does not indicate any awareness of the chemistry of dust.

24 Life of creatures are in the blood Leviticus 17:11

Yes, an observation clear without modern scientific knowledge.

25 The nature of infectious diseases Leviticus 13:46

Obviously they knew infectious diseases were communicable. That doesn't imply they knew the mechanisms of infection. "Defilement" is a religous concept not a medical one.

26 Importance of sanitation to health Numbers 19, Deuteronomy 23:12-13, Leviticus 7-9

Sorry, "clean" in the Torah refers to ritual purity and does not indicate an awareness of the role of hygiene in health.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Air has weight Job 28:25


this is an interesting one given the origin of the word ruach.
it shows that who ever compiled this list is rather incompetent.

for the word translated wind here is a very important word in the OT. it is usually translated as spirit or soul as in Gen 1:2
(AV - Spirit or spirit 232, wind 92, breath 27, side 6, mind 5, blast 4,
vain 2, air 1, anger 1, cool 1, courage 1, misc 6; 378) from: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1153929479-3722.html


where the Spirit is moving across the waters.

It takes as a major analogy-wind, something that for prescientific people did not have a beginning, nor an end, they didn't understand where it started nor where it was going. They saw it's power but thought that it had no substance. It is a good analogy for spirit.

it however is a very bad idea to find "air has weight" in the idea, for this is the very opposite to the meaning....


stupid and counter productive example.

 

[theoddamerican]

I will find the text books that this stuff is in. It may take me a bit but I remember that this stuff was used in my text books in my school. They used vestigial as useless not smaller and I never have seen a text book that says smaller organs. Also sometimes in the bible they wrote some things in the figurative to basicially paint a picture in ones mind. Sometimes they used literal. If you wanted to describe how the universe expanded and had limited resources how would you explaine it. Kent Hovind may be wrong about somethings but he does give you enough material to get you started to find the truth for your self. Also why didnt you reply about some of the more literal things in the bible. Like the streams in the oceans that scientist didn't discover untill the mid 70s. Or that in the bible the earth is round. To argue that the earth is spherical is pointless. It is just like saying salt shouldn't be called salt because it is sodium chloride. It means the same thing. Alos to comment about the time and year the bible states the first day. It talks about a literal 24 hours, and not billions of years. I do have a question about the billions of years though. Is this amount of time proven or guessed at as being this amount of timeAlso I wanted to know what evidence you have for proof of evolution. text book or other wise.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

17 Water cycle described Ecclesiastes 1:7 [snip]

22 Winds blow in circular paths Ecclesiastes 1:6

Look carefully at those two verses in context. In particular, look at the verse directly before them that follows the same pattern.

You take verse 1:6 as a literal description of how the wind blows in circular paths. You take verse 1:7 as a literal description of the water cycle. Why do you not also take 1:5 as a literal description of the movement of the sun, and particularly its accelerated motion to return to the spot where it will rise? Why isn't this verse on your list as confirming the scientific reality of geocentrism and perhaps even a flat earth?