Engraved in Stone

[Theodor1]

Everyone accepts that Science changes. Even if the evidence does not change. For example mulit million year old fossils do not change, only our understanding of those fossils changes over time. It is the same with the Bible. The ten commandments have not changed. Our understanding of the Bible seems to change. This was a BIG issue when Jesus walked the earth. Even among the religious elitists. For example one group believed in the resurrection and one religious group did not believe. They were always asking Jesus His opinion on a religious question that people did not agree on. It all pretty much looks the same today. I do not see where anything in this regard has changed in the last two or three thousand years. Or even the last 6,000 years.

What I do not understand is why so called men of science pretend like they do not understand the Bible. Then they get mad at Christians when they pretend they do not understand Science. After all it is a lot easier to burn a straw-man then it is to be a part of the real world and deal with the real issues that involve our generation today. Is that what this discussion is all about? Building a straw-man and then tearing apart your own argument?

 

[essentialsaltes]

What I do not understand is why so called men of science pretend like they do not understand the Bible.

It is not that, exactly. Rather it is that the bible is irrelevant for carrying out science, so scientists have no reason to refer to it. Neither do mathematicians, plumbers, or airline pilots.

 

[Michael]

What I do not understand is why so called men of science pretend like they do not understand the Bible.

I tend to be more miffed when so called "scientists" pretend not to understand electricity.

 

[Heissonear]

It is not that, exactly. Rather it is that the bible is irrelevant for carrying out science, so scientists have no reason to refer to it. Neither do mathematicians, plumbers, or airline pilots.

Oh wise one of modern times! The Bible becomes irrelevant when science is your God. The God of the Bible, numbers, the atmosphere, etc. becomes irrelevant when modern man says we'll take your Creation from here.

 

[Split Rock]

Everyone accepts that Science changes. Even if the evidence does not change. For example mulit million year old fossils do not change, only our understanding of those fossils changes over time. It is the same with the Bible. The ten commandments have not changed. Our understanding of the Bible seems to change. This was a BIG issue when Jesus walked the earth. Even among the religious elitists. For example one group believed in the resurrection and one religious group did not believe. They were always asking Jesus His opinion on a religious question that people did not agree on. It all pretty much looks the same today. I do not see where anything in this regard has changed in the last two or three thousand years. Or even the last 6,000 years.

What I do not understand is why so called men of science pretend like they do not understand the Bible. Then they get mad at Christians when they pretend they do not understand Science. After all it is a lot easier to burn a straw-man then it is to be a part of the real world and deal with the real issues that involve our generation today. Is that what this discussion is all about? Building a straw-man and then tearing apart your own argument?

I see more stawmen from creationists here, such as:
Punctuated Equilibrium means a lizard gives birth to a bird
Evolutionists use the rocks to date the fossils and the fossils to date the rocks.
Evolution is dogma that cannot be challenged.
etc.

 

[Paulos23]

Oh wise one of modern times! The Bible becomes irrelevant when science is your God. The God of the Bible, numbers, the atmosphere, etc. becomes irrelevant when modern man says we'll take your Creation from here.

Until there is evidence that God hads a hand in making things happen in the universe, there is no reason to assume that he does in expaining the universe. We have had years of finding nautral causes for things and so far it doesn't look like that is going to change.

Saying that God is "just around the next discovery" doesn't make it so.

 

[Strathos]

I'm not sure what the OP is asking exactly.

 

[keith99]

Everyone accepts that Science changes. Even if the evidence does not change. For example mulit million year old fossils do not change, only our understanding of those fossils changes over time. It is the same with the Bible. The ten commandments have not changed. Our understanding of the Bible seems to change. This was a BIG issue when Jesus walked the earth. Even among the religious elitists. For example one group believed in the resurrection and one religious group did not believe. They were always asking Jesus His opinion on a religious question that people did not agree on. It all pretty much looks the same today. I do not see where anything in this regard has changed in the last two or three thousand years. Or even the last 6,000 years.

What I do not understand is why so called men of science pretend like they do not understand the Bible. Then they get mad at Christians when they pretend they do not understand Science. After all it is a lot easier to burn a straw-man then it is to be a part of the real world and deal with the real issues that involve our generation today. Is that what this discussion is all about? Building a straw-man and then tearing apart your own argument?

I hate to be the one to inform you of this (not). But the evidence does change. An undiscovered fossil is no more evidence than a gun at the bottom of the ocean is evidence in a murder trial. And just as a gun at the bottom of the sea will in time corrode so will a fossil in time erode or otherwise cease to exist.

 

[Gottservant]

"Science changes" is what they will repeat, forever and a day, once Evolution is comprehensively mathematically debunked AND I know for a fact that it can be.

 

[Theodor1]

I hate to be the one to inform you of this (not). But the evidence does change. An undiscovered fossil is no more evidence than a gun at the bottom of the ocean is evidence in a murder trial. And just as a gun at the bottom of the sea will in time corrode so will a fossil in time erode or otherwise cease to exist.

We do find additional evidence as we would expect to. As the worlds population doubles then you have a lot more people out doing research and looking for natural evidence. It is not that expensive to take a tour of Darwin's islands today. Back in Darwin's day that sort of tour was a rather rare experience.

 

[Theodor1]

Rather it is that the bible is irrelevant for carrying out science,

The Bible is used extensively for MANY areas of science. Perhaps you do not know anything about science if you do not understand how much the Bible is used.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We do find additional evidence as we would expect to.

And for 150 years, the additional evidence has shaped the theory of evolution, and made its basic conclusions more and more certain.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Bible is used extensively for MANY areas of science.

Could you give an example of this extensive use? The Bible was never used as a textbook in any of my science courses.

Perhaps you do not know anything about science if you do not understand how much the Bible is used.

No, my knowledge of science is pretty good. But I'm always looking to learn more, so I would be interested in hearing about this extensive use of the Bible in science.

 

[durangodawood]

The Bible is used extensively for MANY areas of science. Perhaps you do not know anything about science if you do not understand how much the Bible is used.

For example.....?

 

[Theodor1]

Could you give an example of this extensive use?

I could but I do not know why I would because I just do not see any evidence where anyone here is interested in knowing the truth. Even the little tiny bit of truth that I maybe able to offer.

No, my knowledge of science is pretty good.

What area of science is your knowledge "pretty good"?

 

[Theodor1]

For example.....?

Of course I can give you an example. The Bible is an accurate History book. So the Bible can help us in the study of archeology. Cities like Babylon, Ur, Ninivah have been a subject of study for archeology over the years. As you may know archeology is a study of ancient artifacts. The Bible as a History book can give Science another perspective on what life was like back then.

Of course there are a lot of clay tablets that go back even 1,000 years before the Bible. Yet there are very few people that can read or translate the tablets, much less help us to understand their meaning. The Bible has many more people skilled in translation and many more people that can help us to understand the Bible and it's meaning and message for us today.

 

[Gene2memE]

The Bible is used extensively for MANY areas of science. Perhaps you do not know anything about science if you do not understand how much the Bible is used.

Having worked as both a historical researcher and an engineer, and having a partner who is a surgeon, I can definitely say that the bible has failed to be of any use in the fields of engineering and medicine and is only vaugely useful as a historical document.

Of course I can give you an example. The Bible is an accurate History book. So the Bible can help us in the study of archeology. Cities like Babylon, Ur, Ninivah have been a subject of study for archeology over the years. As you may know archeology is a study of ancient artifacts. The Bible as a History book can give Science another perspective on what life was like back then.

History is a soft science. Science deals only with natural explanations. Historical accuracy therefore excludes miraculous accounts. Thus, the bible cannot therefore be a wholly accurate account, unless you do so in a non-scientific, ahistorical manner.

The historicity of the bible accounts, even the New Testament books, varies wildly. This is the view even among serious biblical scholars who take a generous interpretation of the book. The bible is thus only intermittently useful as a primary historical source. Even then, its main benefit is as social/behavioural account, rather than as any accurate record of the passage of events.

You wont find, for example, serious scholars/writers that will argue for the historicity of the exodous accounts, the great flood/Noah account, the Judges period, not to mention the genesis account (s). You will find that scholars that agree that the Babylonia captitvity and the United Monarchy have some basis in actual history. And then you'll find that there's mixed opinions on the historicity of the conquests of David or Solomon, or the accuracy of Joshua or the historicity of Jesus. See Richard Carrier for example.

Of course there are a lot of clay tablets that go back even 1,000 years before the Bible. Yet there are very few people that can read or translate the tablets, much less help us to understand their meaning. The Bible has many more people skilled in translation and many more people that can help us to understand the Bible and it's meaning and message for us today.

If these clay tablets go back 1000 years before the bible, then what use is a text written in a different language from a different time period? Examples of written semitic languages date back about 1800 BC, but they're pretty much useless for cueniform, elamite, siniatic, hieratic ect, ect that pre-date the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin the various books of the bible were written in.

 

[Theodor1]

Having worked as both a historical researcher and an engineer, and having a partner who is a surgeon, I can definitely say that the bible has failed to be of any use in the fields of engineering and medicine and is only vaugely useful as a historical document.

You make me laugh. Gobekli Tepe are considered to be the oldest buildings around 10,000 years ago. BUT Gobekli Tepe was NOT a city, and people did not live there. Otherwise the Bible is a part of the history of the beginning of engineering and medicine. To be sure they have medical books in Egypt written before the Bible. Just like they have clay tablets written even 1000 years before the Bible. I am not trying to claim that the Bible is the OLDEST history book. I am just saying that the Bible is among the first history books and the Bible is a part of the beginning of written history. Engineering and medicine was very much a part of that history. We are talking about the beginning of civilization and engineering is very much a part of that history as well as medicine. In fact one of the first medicine book had to do with emergency medicine to deal with the injury from the accidents from building the pyramids in Egypt. Moses did write extensively about this subject in the Bible. For example Moses gave strict laws for sanitation. Something we all know is essential. In fact Moses has strict laws for washing their hands. Something that Medicine did not rediscovery again until very recently.

If it were me I would not be so quick to censor the book that is the most popular and most read book in the world. I would maybe pick on something that was not so well respected and so well regarded.

So again, just take the very small point about how Moses gave us the law of washing our hands 3700 years ago. Yet even 100 years ago surgeons were not washing their hands according to the teachings of the Bible and many people died because of that. Even the infant mortality rate was very high because of their disregard for the Bible and the teachings of the Bible. Even if they had followed the sanitary laws of Moses that would have gone a LONG way to eliminate the plague that killed up to half the population at ground zero. In the areas they followed the Bible like the Jewish Ghettos they did not have any problems with the Plague.

Anyways, I do not want to write a book on all of this because you only asked for an example and I have more then provided that for you.

So what do you have on the history of the law of washing your hands and the law of sanitation? Can you tell me what the ancient Sumerian people had to do with all of that? We read about these ancient people in the Bible where all of this had it's beginning. Even 3,000 years ago Moses had very exact plans for building the temple. Do YOU have any plans for any building from 3,000 years ago? Perhaps you would like to tell me about the transition from the stone age to the metal age. Do you have some written history you would like to share with us. OR do you just have the artifacts themselves that we can all play guessing games about what they were for and what their purpose was.

 

[Heissonear]

And for 150 years, the additional evidence has shaped the theory of evolution, and made its basic conclusions more and more certain.

How sad. The theory of evolution has been around 150 years and still cannot be proven. That includes punctuated equilibrium which tries to match the lack of transition mutation species.

 

[Heissonear]

Having worked as both a historical researcher and an engineer, and having a partner who is a surgeon, I can definitely say that the bible has failed to be of any use in the fields of engineering and medicine and is only vaugely useful as a historical document.

History is a soft science. Science deals only with natural explanations. Historical accuracy therefore excludes miraculous accounts. Thus, the bible cannot therefore be a wholly accurate account, unless you do so in a non-scientific, ahistorical manner.

The historicity of the bible accounts, even the New Testament books, varies wildly. This is the view even among serious biblical scholars who take a generous interpretation of the book. The bible is thus only intermittently useful as a primary historical source. Even then, its main benefit is as social/behavioural account, rather than as any accurate record of the passage of events.

You wont find, for example, serious scholars/writers that will argue for the historicity of the exodous accounts, the great flood/Noah account, the Judges period, not to mention the genesis account (s). You will find that scholars that agree that the Babylonia captitvity and the United Monarchy have some basis in actual history. And then you'll find that there's mixed opinions on the historicity of the conquests of David or Solomon, or the accuracy of Joshua or the historicity of Jesus. See Richard Carrier for example.

If these clay tablets go back 1000 years before the bible, then what use is a text written in a different language from a different time period? Examples of written semitic languages date back about 1800 BC, but they're pretty much useless for cueniform, elamite, siniatic, hieratic ect, ect that pre-date the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin the various books of the bible were written in.

Nice try in using the intellectual equal button. The result? Earthly knowledge that has no awareness of the Spiritual Realm in our midst. In all sincereness, it is sad to hear of those who have lived a life without apprehending they have been continuously before Him throughout their life; He has watched and heard everything they have done and said. And to then wind up with a testimony of unbelief.

Now, what does your big thick books say?