No. That would be incorrect.
I've formal education in history, economics and law, and professional experience in education, law and consulting in a number of different fields, primarily environmental issues and aviation. I'm self educated - meaning widely read, mostly through written for the layman books - in a range of other topics.
The reason I quoted your post is that stating you "worked in the field of science" is an exceptionally odd phraseology. Its like saying you "lived in the suburb of Earth". Or the accent you used to have was "a language".
As for there being "no disagreements in what God actually meant, and what Science also says is true", I'm intrigued by your use of weasel words "actually meant". It gives you an exceptionally broad out, without any of those nasty cognitive dissonance issues that crop up nine times out of ten with biblical literalists around here.
What then, is your position on the following:
Global flooding within the period of recorded history
Transformation of homo sapiens into pillars of salt
The duration of survivability when consumed by a giant sea creature
Genetic bottlenecking in species when reduced to two or seven breeding pairs
Hi,
What I meant by the what God actually meant, was not weasely, but I suppose I can guess why you used that particular set of words.
By Osmosis, meaning it was always done, calibrations of people and equipment are done in research as a normal not thought of activity. After a few years, it is no longer even thought of, unless a calibration was missed, and then all the work is started over again. It is that unknown, that causes work to be redone, as the fundamental tool, Controlled Experiments, have to be done, with only one thing that is changed called the unknown.
Please try to see this as no evasion of your questions. I will not evade. But hand in there to hopefully understand me, before I answer the amount of questions I can answer, if any.
Biblically, I tested five items after the first part of my research was done. In the first part, I did not know if The Bible was real or not. All I know is using the standard resarch methods, I could not prove the Bible wrong with a proof that would stand up to scientific scrutiny of the types of people I worked with, but I did take the next step. I asked around in the year 2000 or so if anyone had proved the Bible wrong with a proof that could stand up. No one had.
After a much needed break from that work, I ran five controlled experiements, with only one unknown. As, you use normal logic, you know that tested items can result in and answer, and they can result in a no answer and they can result in an ambiguous answer.
The answer, to whether the Bible is real or not, was unambiguous, but. But, I had to spend years and years taking out, the accidental errors put into that book by translators. To do that, required up to 9 translations and a general translation. The nice part of that, is I did not have to revert to the original languages doing that, and that shortened the work probably by years and years. As it was it took over 8 years just to complete the first part.
After the first part was done, I did have two items I could prove did not happen the way the Bible said it did. In peer review, I had failed to accomodate some things, and made an error. I was then left with nothing, that I could prove wrong.
Interestingly enough, it was the age of Adam, and the year in which the global flood was supposed to have happened, using the begets and begats to date that. In peer review, so if I was wrong on that, I would not be too embarassed in public, in three months time, the second reference countered and I was then left with nothing for awhile.
In figuring out what the Bible actually means rather than what it seems to say, I had to calibrate ever word used, in all of my controlled experiements. I could not assume. Now, back to you.
1.) Global flooding is at least in the 15,000 to 30,000 BCE era, if it is even calibratable as it is vastly outside of recorded history, and the people who say otherwise are just making errors in their dating, and the same ones that I made intitially.
2.) I don't know anything about the transformation of anyone, by artifact, into a pillar of salt, and I imagine in all these years, it would have been disolved by now.
3.) I really expect the survivability of a man in a fish, is rather brief, roughly on the order of minutes, but. But, to use that alone, means you have to ignore the God part, by saying either that you know that God did not do that, or you know the circumstances of the type of fish, that actually did the deed. So, yes it is easily dismissable, but. But, only if it is taken out of context, and assumptions are thrown in.
4.) I essentially know nothing about genetics. Remember the calibration? I and all researchers can only look at items that they understand. I have to first understand completely, and by myself every item I look at, in advanced research. I did not look at genetic bottle necking and actually I didn't have to, with the results of the Controlled Experiments.
A note: If the Controlled Experiments, and the first one was to see if God was in back of the words Honor your father and your mother or not, did not in fact yeild the results that they did. I would have moved on to other areas of research. Pet research. I was not paid for this, per se.
LOVE,
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
