Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Michael]

Science is man discovering what God has already established. Gods laws are the laws of nature. People van call it what they want. The world calls Gods justice "Karma". They say that its your conscience eating you when in fact it is God convicting you of sin. God created the scientific thought process. Everything you see was naturally created by God; but the way he created was with a design and a way that nature could sustain itself.

 

[Michael]

NoNo, you can't. You can playaround with current laws that God set up here for the time being.

You are sidestepping the question and the issue. We use these laws of physics to build technologies which sustain our modern civilization. We have every logical reason to believe they the same physical laws apply, past, present and future. We have no idea *when* this planet was created based upon a few paragraphs from a religious document.

We can however apply logic, common sense, and a wee bit of "physics" and we can see that the planet itself is in excess of 4.6 billion years old based on these simple laws of physics, which explains why we have something close to 800,000 years of ice core samples in our inventory.

Even if Earth itself were destroyed one fine day, the same "laws of physics" would still apply for all we know.

 

[ScottA]

You are sidestepping the question and the issue. We use these laws of physics to build technologies which sustain our modern civilization. We have every logical reason to believe they the same physical laws apply, past, present and future. We have no idea *when* this planet was created based upon a few paragraphs from a religious document.

We can however apply logic, common sense, and a wee bit of "physics" and we can see that the planet itself is in excess of 4.6 billion years old based on these simple laws of physics, which explains why we have something close to 800,000 years of ice core samples in our inventory.

Even if Earth itself were destroyed one fine day, the same "laws of physics" would still apply for all we know.

That is only true IF you look to the world for answers.

Then the serpent said to the women, "Surely, the world is older than God has said."

 

[Michael]

That is only true IF you look to the world for answers.

You look to the world to get answers. From the world you get your computer, and the internet, and roads to drive your car, etc. Why wouldn't one look to the rest of the universe for various answers related to topics of scientific interest?

Science is simply the study of God's creation from my perspective. God has nothing to fear from science. That may not be the case for some individual belief systems that revolve around the concept of a literal translation of the first book of Moses.

Genesis says absolutely nothing about *when* the Earth was created. Any belief you hold to the contrary is not shared by even a majority of "Christian", let alone everyone.

Faith in Christ should have *nothing* to do with the age of the Earth or various other scientific areas of interest. Why individuals insist on mixing in irrelevant issues is beyond me. It's the teaching of Christ that are most important in that book, and even Christ used metaphors during his lifetime.

Then the serpent said to the women, "Surely, the world is older than God has said."

Since we really aren't infallible, nor God incarnate, and we cannot presume to speak for God as it relates to the age of the Earth, it's really your personal "interpretation" of a few paragraphs of a single book that we're debating, not what God actually "said".

 

[Hoghead1]

I disagree, ScottA. Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are two separate, contradictory accounts, to start with. Furthermore, when you speak of looking to the world, you need to spell out what you mean by world. You apparently hold with the inerrancy of Scripture. Well, that is best termed the inerrancy of Scripture, since it is simply a human-made, fallible theory about how God may be related to the writing of Scripture. So, holding with it, well, that is simply holding with the world insofar as world represents the thoughts and opinions of other people. You need, then, to test this theory out. Maybe it is right, maybe not. You need to come to Scripture, with an open mind. Fact is, the inerrancy theory has been tested out and has been found not to work very well. Remember, the Bible, divinely inspirited or no, was written buy fallible human beings.

 

[Joyful Mama]

Myth: The Bible says that the earth is flat.

Fact: The Bible uses the phrase “the ends of the earth” to mean “the most distant part of the earth”; this does not imply that the earth is flat or that it has an edge. (Acts 1:8; footnote) Likewise, the expression “the four corners of the earth” is a figure of speech referring to the entire surface of the earth; today a person might use the four points of the compass as a similar metaphor.—Isaiah 11:12; Luke 13:29.

It also says that God 'encircled' the Earth.

 

[ScottA]

You look to the world to get answers. From the world you get your computer, and the internet, and roads to drive your car, etc. Why wouldn't one look to the rest of the universe for various answers related to topics of scientific interest?

Science is simply the study of God's creation from my perspective. God has nothing to fear from science. That may not be the case for some individual belief systems that revolve around the concept of a literal translation of the first book of Moses.

Genesis says absolutely nothing about *when* the Earth was created. Any belief you hold to the contrary is not shared by even a majority of "Christian", let alone everyone.

Faith in Christ should have *nothing* to do with the age of the Earth or various other scientific areas of interest. Why individuals insist on mixing in irrelevant issues is beyond me. It's the teaching of Christ that are most important in that book, and even Christ used metaphors during his lifetime.



Since we really aren't infallible, nor God incarnate, and we cannot presume to speak for God as it relates to the age of the Earth, it's really your personal "interpretation" of a few paragraphs of a single book that we're debating, not what God actually "said".

The earth and the entire universe (the world) are under the domain of Satan. To look to the world for answers (as science does), is to look to Satan, who is a lair.

On the contrary, the truth, can only be found in God.

Who you gonna believe?

 

[ScottA]

I disagree, ScottA. Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are two separate, contradictory accounts, to start with. Furthermore, when you speak of looking to the world, you need to spell out what you mean by world. You apparently hold with the inerrancy of Scripture. Well, that is best termed the inerrancy of Scripture, since it is simply a human-made, fallible theory about how God may be related to the writing of Scripture. So, holding with it, well, that is simply holding with the world insofar as world represents the thoughts and opinions of other people. You need, then, to test this theory out. Maybe it is right, maybe not. You need to come to Scripture, with an open mind. Fact is, the inerrancy theory has been tested out and has been found not to work very well. Remember, the Bible, divinely inspirited or no, was written buy fallible human beings.

God's word, is His own providence. Fallible men did not inspire the word of God. And leaving ones mind open to anything more, will only let Satan in.

 

[Loudmouth]

The earth and the entire universe (the world) are under the domain of Satan. To look to the world for answers (as science does), is to look to Satan, who is a lair.

On the contrary, the truth, can only be found in God.

Who you gonna believe?

Science and football. Two things that are from the Devil!!!!

 

[Michael]

The earth and the entire universe (the world) are under the domain of Satan.

To look to the world for answers (as science does), is to look to Satan, who is a lair.

On the contrary, the truth, can only be found in God.

Who you gonna believe?

You mean which "interpretation" of a couple of a paragraphs am I going to believe? The one that most jive with "reality". The universe is "Gods" creation.

Based on your belief systems, why are you even using a computer if it's nothing more than a tool of Satan?

 

[ScottA]

You mean which "interpretation" of a couple of a paragraphs am I going to believe? The one that most jive with "reality". The universe is "Gods" creation.

Based on your belief systems, why are you even using a computer if it's nothing more than a tool of Satan?

You misunderstand. All the world (the universe) may be under Satan, but it was not created for Satan's purpose, but for God's. Thus, when I use something like a computer or a rope for instance, it is life. But to Satan, it is to hang himself, which he does willingly, for it is all he has.

 

[Michael]

You misunderstand. All the world (the universe) may be under Satan, but it was not created for Satan's purpose, but for God's.

So we're right back to attempting to ascertaining *God's* purpose through physics.

Thus, when I use something like a computer or a rope for instance, it is life. But to Satan, it is to hang himself, which he does willingly, for it is all he has.

IMO God's purpose was written in empirical physics at the moment of creation, and that physics continues to serve his purpose.

 

[ScottA]

So we're right back to attempting to ascertaining *God's* purpose through physics.



IMO God's purpose was written in empirical physics at the moment of creation, and that physics continues to serve his purpose.

Fair enough.

My position is not to take anything away from the physics, but to give credit where it is [actually] due. Studying the physics of God's creation to determine His purpose, is like examining a DVD and player to understand the purpose of a movie. But make no mistake, the physics are not going to show up in the credits at the end of the movie. Medicine makes the same mistake when they treat the symptom rather than the cause.

The heart and soul of this topic, is not scientific.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science and football. Two things that are from the Devil!!!!

Wow.

Sort and repost, will you?

What does football have to do with foosball?

And are you saying football is of the devil and foosball is the devil?

Or what, exactly?

Your post doesn't make any sense.

 

[stephen583]

"For the INVISIBLE THINGS of him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the THINGS THAT ARE MADE, even his eternal power and Godhead; so they are without excuse:" (ROMANS 1:20, KJV).

Here is the definitive answer to the question, "is science and the Bible really compatible
". The Scripture explicitly states, the invisible nature of God can be CLEARLY OBSERVED according to what has been CREATED, (Romans 1:20). In scientific terms, this is called the principle of "scientific observation", it is the cornerstone of modern science. When Sir Issac Newton dropped an apple, he OBSERVED the force of gravity working on the apple.

Therefore, the Scripture is saying "scientific observation" is the way to understanding the unfathomable nature of God. Especially concerning the creation itself, as described in the Book of Genesis.

Did you know science and the Bible actually agree on how the universe began ?! Science says it started with the BIG BANG. A cosmic explosion of unimaginable power. What does the Bible say ?

"And the earth was without form, and void ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light" (Genesis 1:2-3, KJV).

What is "earth without form" ?! Obviously the Scripture is talking about sub atomic matter. What are the faces of water ?! Solid (ice), Vapor (Steam), Liquid (Water). How about it's molecular designation H20, One part Hydrogen two parts Oxygen. What happens whenever an atom of Hydrogen is moved upon or split ?! An awful amount of energy is released, isn't it. Energy in the form of what ? "And God said, Let there be light" !!! In other words, the BIG BANG. Sounds compatible to me.

According to the scientific principle of entropy and astrophysics, science states that one day billions and billions of years from now the last existing star will die a cold and dark death, as the last matter is transformed into energy and that energy dissipates, (Discover Magazine, January 2016). The Bible also states one day the heavens and the earth will pass away, (Matt.24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). Once again science and the Bible are in agreement. They both agree how the universe began, and that one day it will certainly come to an end.

Albert Einstein was once asked whether or not he believed in God. He answered, "Anyone who can not imagine the unfathomable, is already dead" (end quote). I hope that concession by the renowned scientist and professed atheist was enough to get him past St. Peter and into the gates of heaven, because I'd very much like to have a conversation with him when I get there. Perhaps no words will be necessary, and the two of us will just nod our heads at one another in friendship and exchange a knowing smile.

 

[stephen583]

In the next post tomorrow, I will cover the rest of the Genesis creation story and we'll talk about Dinosaurs, the evolution of modern life after the last great extinction event, the creation of modern man, and the development of agriculture and raising livestock in paleolithic times and the story of Cain and Able.

 

[dad]

Once again, your logic would require us to throw out all forensic evidence in court cases. Good job.

Get forensics from the time of Noah or --corkaroonie.

 

[Hoghead1]

The fact is, ScottA, that fallible humans did write Scripture. There is no doubt about that. Indeed, the Holy Spirit dos not cause a miracle by which we are no longer human and subject to error. The fact is, ScottA, that fallible humans interpret Scripture. The fact is fallible humans invented the inerrancy theory of Scripture. Therefore, the latter is something we need to test out. We cannot take it for granted. And I am saying that when it is tested out, it does not hold water. There are simply too many contradiction's in Scripture, for one thing. Now the situation appears to be one in which God is content with an errant Scripture. And if God is content with it, so should I be. If you insist Scripture should be inerrant, then you are seriously questioning God's standards and trying to project your standards of perfection onto God.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think that works well, Stephen 583, as you are crediting the biblical writers with having a modern scientific knowledge, which they most emphatically did not. The other problem here is that you are not facing the fact that Genesis consists of two contradictory accounts of creation.

 

[ScottA]

The fact is, ScottA, that fallible humans did write Scripture. There is no doubt about that. Indeed, the Holy Spirit dos not cause a miracle by which we are no longer human and subject to error. The fact is, ScottA, that fallible humans interpret Scripture. The fact is fallible humans invented the inerrancy theory of Scripture. Therefore, the latter is something we need to test out. We cannot take it for granted. And I am saying that when it is tested out, it does not hold water. There are simply too many contradiction's in Scripture, for one thing. Now the situation appears to be one in which God is content with an errant Scripture. And if God is content with it, so should I be. If you insist Scripture should be inerrant, then you are seriously questioning God's standards and trying to project your standards of perfection onto God.

You are looking at it all wrong. The world is not about fallible humans.

History, is His story...and if you see it through fallible eyes or only see the things of fallible hands in a fallen world, then you have not seen God. And if you have not heard or read anything but fallible words and language, then you have not heard God, not even that He himself confused it (for an infallible purpose).

It is all perfect.