Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[AV1611VET]

God intended for us to learn through science. That is in the Bible several places. of course, God intended for us to read the Bible, too.

And if the two contradict?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And if the two contradict?

I was going to ask that exact question

 

[SkyWriting]

What is death? Since everything that constitutes our bodies in the quantum level; cannot be destroyed then death is impossible! It is very possible that I have atoms that were part of a T-Rex, Richard III, Socrates, Monte Zuma, etc. Not to mention that initially all our atoms constitute the very chemicals that give us "life"

I take bauxite and turn it into aluminium which in turn I build an aeroplane! Then I oxidise the aluminium of the plane and use it to make sapphires and Rubies! This is similar to what life is all about. Basically one giant LEGO kit for nature to play with in accordance to the laws of physics!

Now when we go to the plank level; then all hell breaks loose. Nothing is certain. It is a world of nothing more than chaotic probabilities. I simply cannot accept there being room for a God; let alone many Gods as claimed by the many religions.

So your God is Atoms then.

How did they manage to hold together?
What laws govern the location of the electron cloud, and how did those laws come to be?

Without those laws governing the behavior of the parts, atoms would just fly apart. And the amount of energy is mass times the speed of light, squared. Why does this energy remain in such a stable state?
Isn't it odd that a force becomes stronger as the two parts mover father apart?

I respect what your saying. We put my brothers ashes in a local river because there were a lot of places he still wanted to go. But really, the only important part was his soul, which was not attached to the ashes. It was somewhere else. And it can't be destroyed either.


It is a world of nothing more than chaotic probabilities.
I dated a brilliant engineer once. She corrected me that "chaos" is a word to describe processes that are too time consuming to figure out.
But they all CAN be figured out.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was going to ask that exact question

Great minds think alike, eh?

[nevermind]

 

[Doveaman]

Then what is bending the light?

The light is not being bent.

So are you claiming the above picture, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, is just an "imaginary" picture?

I am claiming the interpretation of it is imaginary.

The observation of a total solar eclipse in May 1919 helped to confirm Einstein's theory of general relativity. By comparing the apparent distance between two stars, with and without the Sun between them, Arthur Eddington stated that the theoretical predictions about gravitational lenses were confirmed.

ESA - Space Science - Relativity and the 1919 eclipse - images

There are those who believe only what they see, and they are those who see only what they believe. This is true in both religion and science.

Some people see star light as being bent by the sun’s gravity because this is what they already believed, while others see it as star light being distorted by the sun’s corona because this is what they see.

To any lay person watching the shimmering of heat waves off hot asphalt and the distortion of the points on the far side of the heat waves, the turbulence of the sun seems to represent a simple insurmountable barrier to the acquisition of highly precise data. – The Eclipse of 1919

So how do you explain what appears to be a "lensing effect" which also neatly coincides with Einstein's theory?

I consider it to be a desperate and miserably poor interpretation by Consensus Cosmology.

The explanation of Plasma Cosmology makes more sense to me - Gravitational Lensing.

 

[SkyWriting]

And if the two contradict?

I wouldn't have chosen the Bible as Truth if (Darwinian Science) wasn't so clearly wrong already.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wouldn't have chosen the Bible as Truth if Science wasn't so clearly wrong already.

Yesterday's science:

​

Tomorrow's science:

 

[Jnwaco]

And if the two contradict?

First, I don't even like the term "creationist". I consider myself a "creationist" to the extent I believe God created everything, though I do not believe that the Bible was even remotely meant to give us the gory details about how He did it.

I don't believe that science and the Bible do disagree in the sense creationists and atheist evolutionists believe it does. The Bible represents the correct views on science as known by ancient Hebrews. We should expect science to learn more, but the Bible doesn't change. We're allowed and blessed with the ability to have science, but we're warned not to let it make us so arrogant that we deny God. Both of these statements are scriptural. How should God have inspired the Bible so that the science in the Bible would remain unchanged for 3,500 years?

I posted in another thread, if God had inspired the Bible to have been written accurately for 21st century scientists' sake, the Hebrews wouldn't have understood much of it, and the 31st century scientists (assuming man makes it another 1,000 years) would then be mocking it. Ancient Hebrews knew nothing of redshift, electromagnetic fields, quarks, gluons, up spin nor down spin. To make the assumption that God would not accomodate ancient Hebrews' understanding and that He must accomodate 21st century scientists is profoundly misguided.

This entire debate between evolution and creationism is unecessary. There's very little attempt to an honest understanding of either. The two sides use the arguments for nothing more than to further their polemic agendas.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And if the two contradict?

Then obviously we're doing something wrong. The smart money says it's in the way we're reading the Bible.

 

[Jnwaco]

Nathan Poe nailed it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ancient Hebrews knew nothing of redshift, electromagnetic fields, quarks, gluons, up spin nor down spin.

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual.

There is some science in the Bible, but it is written in prescient form so as to apply in all ages.

And for the record, the Creation Week is history, not science.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual.

There is some science in the Bible, but it is written in prescient form so as to apply in all ages.

And for the record, the Creation Week is history, not science.

Also for the record, everything you've said here is your own personal opinion, not to be confused with basic theology or anything supported by the Bible itself.

 

[Jnwaco]

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual.

Agreed. So why the debate over science, when there is an entirely different truth that the Bible is trying to tell us?

There is some science in the Bible, but it is written in prescient form so as to apply in all ages.

And for the record, the Creation Week is history, not science.

Well, I have to disagree with you here. History shows ancient people believed in a firmament - a big glass inverted bowl that held the rain back. The sky is blue, there must be water up there... that sort of thing. I don't think God cared about their science. he knew we'd figure that out on our own since we were created in His image (with some semblence of intelligence). He cared about their relationship with Him, how we should act towards each other, etc. Is the plan of salvation not so simple that a caveman can do it? Neither of these have changed. Is Genesis 1 and 2 about science, or is there some other truth there?

 

[Ellinas]

It takes a very high level of ignorance to conclude that human life is just a bunch of stupid atoms.

"Stupid Atoms"?? Hasn't anyone told you that Atoms are not sentient? Have you no idea what they are?

If only you knew that we are not just a bunch of stupid atoms.

Stupid atoms? No we certainly are not. That we are made up of them? Absolutely yes.

You can insult me all you want; it still will not change the fundamental laws of physics that allow for your very existence. You have no Idea how much science has moved forward since the Bronze age goat herders who believed the world to be flat and who wrote the Bible!

This is not meant to insult Christianity but to put forth the sound principles governing science over faith based convictions and beliefs.

Any more insults?

 

[SkyWriting]

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual.

There is some science in the Bible, but it is written in prescient form so as to apply in all ages.

On the mark.

 

[Jnwaco]

Except for the prescient part, which requires reading the Bible as a science book only. The urge to do this is the precise reason that people like Dawkins want religion eradicated.

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed. So why the debate over science, when there is an entirely different truth that the Bible is trying to tell us?

I don't understand this question.

Well, I have to disagree with you here. History shows ancient people believed in a firmament - a big glass inverted bowl that held the rain back.

That's the Kabbala interpretation, and irregardless of what the people believed, they wrote what they were supposed to write.

If God would have autographed (written in His own handwriting) the entire Bible Himself, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

The sky is blue, there must be water up there... that sort of thing.

It sounds to me like you're assuming their lack of modern-day knowledge affected the veracity of what was written; and nothing could be further from the Truth. God superintended the writing of His Word, and I'm sure He would not have preserved It, had It been written with errors.

I don't think God cared about their science.

Then why is Numbers 5 a lie detector, and Leviticus 25 espousing non-chemical pest control?

You do realize that the Hebrews used state-of-the art technology, do you not?

Why do you think the [true] Bible says "brass", instead of "bronze"?

The Israelites could look like harmless farmers one instance, and in a moment's notice, convert their plowshares into fighting instruments.

Who employed sonic technology in wartime to bring down the walls of a superfortress built to keep invading armies out?

I could go on, but I think (okay, hope) you get the point.

Is the plan of salvation not so simple that a caveman can do it?

Yes - the plan of salvation is summed up in 19 one-syllable words in 1 John 5:12.

Is Genesis 1 and 2 about science, or is there some other truth there?

Genesis 1 and 2 are about history.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except for the prescient part, which requires reading the Bible as a science book only.

Funny --- I don't read It as a science Book.

In fact, the three parts of the Bible are: history, poetry and prophecy.

The urge to do this is the precise reason that people like Dawkins want religion eradicated.

Dawkins and his ilk can take a hike.

I have very little respect for anyone who finds it anathema that the Bible would dare be compared to their precious science.

 

[Jnwaco]

I don't understand this question.That's the Kabbala interpretation, and irregardless of what the people believed, they wrote what they were supposed to write.

How could they have written differently? The question is why do you (and likewise atheists) expect something different than what is written in the Bible?

If God would have autographed (written in His own handwriting) the entire Bible Himself, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.It sounds to me like you're assuming their lack of modern-day knowledge affected the veracity of what was written; and nothing could be further from the Truth.

I agree with you there. To push it further and declare that all science is wrong is to call God a liar according to Psalm 19. If creation testifies and gives us knowledge, then science is ordained by God as a worthy pursuit, so long as we don't forget where it all comes from. If God some how gave the appearance of age to the universe and to the earth, then His creation is therefore lying. So what must be in error here? Anyone who thinks the science in the Bible could or should have been anything different than what was understood at the time. Creationists do this every bit as much as atheists do it.

God superintended the writing of His Word, and I'm sure He would not have preserved It, had It been written with errors.

That makes His creation a sham then, or your reading wrong. If God intended us to understand how His creation works, then He'd most certainly NOT confuse us. Unfortunately, we've confused ourselves.

You do realize that the Hebrews used state-of-the art technology, do you not?

Yes, I'm sure they had hadron colliders and cell phones, we just haven't dug them up yet.

Why do you think the [true] Bible says "brass", instead of "bronze"?

Because brass was known to man before they had writing?

Who employed sonic technology in wartime to bring down the walls of a superfortress built to keep invading armies out?

This is where God Did It is actually a very useful explanation, not that the Hebrews had advanced technology.

I could go on, but I think (okay, hope) you get the point.Yes - the plan of salvation is summed up in 19 one-syllable words in 1 John 5:12.Genesis 1 and 2 are about history.

Genesis 1 and 2 are about who made it all, not the scientific details. That comes later for us.

Look, I think there's error on both sides of this debate, in how and what the Bible was intended to be. Christ blessed the peacemakers, and nowhere else does this world need some peacemakers than in this ongoing, unnecessary debate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Look, I think there's error on both sides of this debate, in how and what the Bible was intended to be.

Good for you --- I don't.

Christ blessed the peacemakers, and nowhere else does this world need some peacemakers than in this ongoing, unnecessary debate.

Yes, and the same Christ that said "blessed are the peacemakers" gave us the "ministry of reconciliation" as well.

Let's see you reconcile Genesis 1 with science in a way that accommodates both paradigms --- instead of saying, "One is wrong, and mine is right."