Does science change?

[Rose Highley]

I think it'd be silly to refuse the science. I believe that the science explains how the world works and the Bible how to go to heaven. If We look at the Bible without reinterpreting it in a metaphorical way, We should believe that the Earth is immovable at the center of the Universe.

 

[eleos1954]

The earth is still flat despite what Copernicus and NASA (Never A Straight Answer) claim. You cite Isaiah 40:18 where Isaiah refers to the circle of the earth. Your confirmation bias leads you to assume that "circle" automatically depicts a globed earth which is three dimensional. However a circle is technically a two dimensional object with its circumference and a flat inner plane. The Hebrew word for circle in this verse is chug. So did Isaiah inspired by the Holy Spirit not know the difference between a circle and a sphere when he described the earth's shape? One need only look several chapters earlier in Isa 22:18 where it states: He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there the chariots you were so proud of will become a disgrace to your master’s house. The Hebrew word for ball in this verse is dur. Two different words so apparently Isaiah knew the difference between a flat circle and a spherical ball. Yet he chose to use chug to describe a circular flat earth.

Thank you for your post. Many times I go back to the original Hebrew or Greek, but because I do not have time or take time to really get into the "depths" of the languages, I rely on the Strong's concordance. Many times by doing so, provides a lot of clarity because the English language is so inferior to the Hebrew or Greek. So in matters of great importance, more research is required on my part. And after thinking about this particular "debate" .... circle, sphere etc. Does it really matter? Not really.

With that I am more mindful of engaging in futile discussion, and weigh the futility of the conversation. Such as - Creation verses evolution - is not futile. That being, the Creator God or not (either one takes "faith"). God/Jesus being the creator of all things ... or not. I am reminded, the hows are often really largely incidental to why ... that being the main purpose of what Gods word and is for the most part for us to understand the relationship between God and mankind, His creation. We do endeavor to understand His truth. In it's most simple form .... God is, and is the creator of all things, and in relation to mankind we were created by Him with purpose and with that our lives to be in harmony with His purposes whether here on earth a temporary life or in Heaven a eternal life. So the import of His word ... is John 3:16 .... everything else given in scripture is given in support of that verse. It's all about Jesus. The more we learn about Him through His Word, by His Holy Spirit in us, teaching us His ways, the more understanding we receive as He reveals His character, His principles, but mostly about His Love and does so over our earthly lifetime. By learning these things we choose Him to live in us and He will help us to live more in harmony with Him and with mankind, improving our character. We here on earth will never understand all things ... but I thank God He will someday put a end to this world of confusion and violence and look forward to spending eternity learning the absolute truth about everything in perfect harmony with Him.

So, we "argue" many things a human characteristic. Keeps conversation interesting though ;o) Someday this will totally end and some of us will have a different character and be with Him. Until then, we continue on with our human character. And quite the characters we are ;o)

1 Corinthians 8

6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.

Temporary life and eventually eternal life.

Even so ... Come Lord Jesus. Amen and Amen.

God Bless.

 

[Hawkins]

Do Christians really think they have to reject modern science to practice their faith? Shouldn't they instead adapt their pre-scientific views of the Bible to match modern science?

You need to know what science is and how it is redefined in order to accommodate the incompatible evolution. The new definition sounds as if science is all about evidence while it's not.

This is the nature of what science is,
======
Science is about the prediction of an end-to-end repetition. Science is accurate because it's always about something which can repeat infinitive number of times for humans to observe and most importantly to predict how it repeats to draw a conclusion. The methodology ToE employed is completely different from any other science. This is so simply because it takes millions of years for an end-to-end evolution to possibly repeat itself. We don't have that time to observe and predict how it repeats to draw any scientific conclusion.

If you implicitly claim that a human can be evolved from in the end a single cell organism, then you have to make the single-cell to human process repeats itself infinitive number of times for humans to do enough observations, and most importantly predictions on how this repeats in order to draw a scientific conclusion. That's how each and every single science works.

This is so because humans are creatures of the present. We don't have the capability to reach the past, and we don't have the capability to reach the future. It is because we have no capability to reach the future that if we can correctly and repeatedly predict how a phenomenon repeats itself into the future, we know that we hit a truth in terms of how we make use of a "theory" to predict the repetition. This is the nature of science and why it is accurate. In a nutshell, science is the making use of predictions repeatedly to identify a truth (which can repeat). ToE is a valid hypothesis in suggesting that evolution (from single cell to fully grown) can be a repeating process (of natural selection). However it's not up to the scientific accuracy as long as you can't make it repeat itself (to the extent of infinitive number of times) for the prediction of its repetition to be made correctly and repeatedly.

That said, to me the theory of common ancestry is a joke in concluding that everyone has an invisible common ancestor without knowing who it is. In terms of how things work, the genes are so if you would like that animal to have its appearance and behavior. If you want a chimp to have its current appearance and behavior, you need the genes to be so disregarding whether the genes share anything in common with that of humans. Everything else can be anything, not necessarily be a result of evolution. It can be a result of interbreeding or a mixture of interbreeding and adaptation. The difference between adaption and evolution is that species can be selected by the nature, however this may not be the way how they are brought to their current state from a single cell.

An analogy is that whenever you see someone in uniform sitting in the cockpit of a plane, you draw the conclusion that he's a pilot. This can be true however it's a pure speculation. He's a pilot when he launches and lands a plane from one airport to another repeatedly as we predict. Then he's a pilot. This what science is and how it makes a difference from the pure speculation. Similarly, when you see how nature changes a species to draw the conclusion that nature can drive a single cell to that species, it's a pure speculation. If you can predict repeatedly how a single cell turns into that species without error, only then you have a science!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We should believe that the Earth is immovable at the center of the Universe.

Is this what Yahweh Says in His Word ?
How would Yahweh know ?

 

[mindlight]

I all-too-often encounter the idea that science is untrustworthy because it changes, and only the Bible is trustworthy because it doesn't change.

It seems some people think science is in constant flux and each new observation or experiment or hypothesis or theory completely invalidates everything that came before. If this were true, automobiles and computers would suddenly quit working every time a scientist publishes a paper in a scientific journal.

Do Christians really think they have to reject modern science to practice their faith? Shouldn't they instead adapt their pre-scientific views of the Bible to match modern science?

God speaks through the book of nature as well as through the scriptures. But his voice in nature makes some things certain and others doubtful. The continual changes through history of the major scientific paradigms is sometimes a result of facts overthrowing fantasy and sometimes about the continual effort to fill the unknowable with something that sounds plausible and the revisionist attempts to fit that to the ideology of the day.

So we have empirical science which establishes facts and has a vast range of practical benefits which we have all benefitted from and then there is inferential science which makes reasonable sounding guesses about the universe we live in. The first kind of science is demonstrable and its proofs are repeatable and cannot really be argued with and the second is evaluated in terms of its explanatory power. The problem is that some people, including myself, believe in a God of miracles and require an audit trail for evidence that is used to express any degree of certainty about things. So accepting fantastical claims like those of chemical evolution or the emergence of the human brain by a macroevolutionary process seems a little dishonest.

When it comes to geology and fossils for instance the facts are the patterns we see in the rocks and the theories are about how they got there.

 

[mindlight]

Science must be testable against the empirical world. You have to be able to test it and prove it false. Since young earth creationism violates geological principles and does not have sufficient geological evidence, it is therefore not true (and it is certainly not science). The only way it could be true is if God created the universe to look old, with light in transit from distant stars and etc. Old earth science matches the geological evidence and the natural laws and is therefore true.

Proving facts and truths about the age of the earth does not require creating the earth (so you can test your theories). Instead, you construct hypotheses from the observed facts and discard these as the evidence contradicts them. Old earth science remains; young earth creationism and intelligent design have long ago fallen to the wayside, discarded in the trash heap of nonsensical ideas. And heck, it's not even Biblical except by way of interpretation ignoring the viewpoints of those who wrote it.

Geological evidence is the patterns in the rock and no one disagrees about those. The theories about how they got there however goes way beyond what can actually be said from the facts. Just cause one person sounds more plausible than another does not make them right and especially when there are no facts to falsify their viewpoint. One of the major problems with modern science is the argument from analogy about things about which it cannot possibly be certain, for which it has not audit trail and for which they may well be another explanation.

 

[Oldmantook]

Thank you for your post. Many times I go back to the original Hebrew or Greek, but because I do not have time or take time to really get into the "depths" of the languages, I rely on the Strong's concordance. Many times by doing so, provides a lot of clarity because the English language is so inferior to the Hebrew or Greek. So in matters of great importance, more research is required on my part. And after thinking about this particular "debate" .... circle, sphere etc. Does it really matter? Not really.

With that I am more mindful of engaging in futile discussion, and weigh the futility of the conversation. Such as - Creation verses evolution - is not futile. That being, the Creator God or not (either one takes "faith"). God/Jesus being the creator of all things ... or not. I am reminded, the hows are often really largely incidental to why ... that being the main purpose of what Gods word and is for the most part for us to understand the relationship between God and mankind, His creation. We do endeavor to understand His truth. In it's most simple form .... God is, and is the creator of all things, and in relation to mankind we were created by Him with purpose and with that our lives to be in harmony with His purposes whether here on earth a temporary life or in Heaven a eternal life. So the import of His word ... is John 3:16 .... everything else given in scripture is given in support of that verse. It's all about Jesus. The more we learn about Him through His Word, by His Holy Spirit in us, teaching us His ways, the more understanding we receive as He reveals His character, His principles, but mostly about His Love and does so over our earthly lifetime. By learning these things we choose Him to live in us and He will help us to live more in harmony with Him and with mankind, improving our character. We here on earth will never understand all things ... but I thank God He will someday put a end to this world of confusion and violence and look forward to spending eternity learning the absolute truth about everything in perfect harmony with Him.

So, we "argue" many things a human characteristic. Keeps conversation interesting though ;o) Someday this will totally end and some of us will have a different character and be with Him. Until then, we continue on with our human character. And quite the characters we are ;o)

1 Corinthians 8

6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.

Temporary life and eventually eternal life.

Even so ... Come Lord Jesus. Amen and Amen.

God Bless.

Whether such a discussion is futile and not worth discussing is indeed an individual preference. However to claim that science proves a spherical earth which invalidates the scriptural text would not be valid claim. If you do decide to look into it further for yourself you will find that the scriptures also refer to a "firmament" over the earth (some translations expanse, heavens). The Hebrews as well as other ancient peoples believed that the flat earth is covered by a solid dome or firmament (picture a snow globe). Gen 1:16-17 states that God placed the sun, moon and stars in the firmament. This would make these celestial bodies smaller and closer to the earth than we were taught. A solid domed-covered earth would also negate the NASA claim that men landed on the moon. At this point, I'm sure people think the discussion is not only futile but foolish as well. But then again as a result of the Scopes trial, people thought the Bible and Christians were foolish to not believe in evolution and instead cling to their beliefs in creation and a Creator.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have no disdain for science and philosophy.

Some people are just not very imaginative and they can't figure out how to be both a Christian and to have an appreciation for human knowledge. Others a simply religious leaders looking to broker power with the unintelligent and dull by using the Bible as a mythology to support their political goals.

 

[Colter]

Science only debunks the superstitious claims of religion. Evolved religion is the scaffolding for the reception of revealed religion such as Judaism providing the scaffolding for the reception of Jesus’ higher truth.


We can learn a lot from what Jesus did NOT say relative to common assumptions.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That explains partly why so many ignore God's Word entirely.
To their resurrection of judgment and shame.....

 

[FireDragon76]

That explains partly why so many ignore God's Word entirely.
To their resurrection of judgment and shame.....

Ah... fear. I rest my case.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Ah... fear. I rest my case.

No, no fear. (except for the wicked and lost)

Yahweh grants peace, joy and righteousness, to everyone who is willing, as Jesus said. (in Jesus' lament over Jerusalem, who had not been willing) ...

 

[Tom 1]

very crude and uninformed verses regarding space

Crude and uniformed if taken as attempts to set out scientific explanations, not crude or uniformed if taken as intended.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, no fear. (except for the wicked and lost)

Yahweh grants peace, joy and righteousness, to everyone who is willing, as Jesus said. (in Jesus' lament over Jerusalem, who had not been willing) ...

Translation:

"Buy into my unreasonable ideology so I can feel important. Or else a big scary bogieman is going to get you".

Sorry, God gave me a brain for a reason. I don't have to accept what you are saying is from God's own mouth, just because you claim it is.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Translation:

"Buy into my unreasonable ideology so I can feel important. Or else a big scary bogieman is going to get you".

Sorry, God gave me a brain for a reason. I don't have to accept what you are saying is from God's own mouth, just because you claim it is.

It is written. Don't take a man's word for it, no need to. Read it.

Those who reject Yahweh's Word, Jesus Says, reject Him first.

He is always right.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is written. Don't take a man's word for it, no need to. Read it.

Those who reject Yahweh's Word, Jesus Says, reject Him first.

He is always right.

I read the same Bible and come to entirely different conclusions.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Sorry, God gave me a brain for a reason.

I am not sorry that God gave you a brain. Use it for His GLory every day, and you will be blessed.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I read the same Bible and come to entirely different conclusions.

This is more common , probably, than most people ever think.
The reason for this is not comfortable, and cannot be discussed.
It can be cleared up, however,
according to God's Word, and God's Spirit, in Yeshua Messiah.
This is always what we seek and pray - The Father's Will, not ours, be done.
Shalom !

 

[Tayla]

An analogy is that whenever you see someone in uniform sitting in the cockpit of a plane, you draw the conclusion that he's a pilot. This can be true however it's a pure speculation.

Sherlock Holmes would know. He would use science to deduce it.

 

[Tayla]

I believe the Word of God is the Living truth while the Bible is the written word, primarily human interpretations of the doings of God. There are errors and contradictions in the written word as should be expected. There are multiple versions of the same events.

The creation story in Genesis was a creation of man who was ignorant of evolution and science.

Yes I agree. Thank you. I'm happy to see I'm not the only one who believes such things.