For all of you "Big Bang" Believers...

[sr. scholls]

Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?

First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven.


Quoted from the website that you gave to me. I'm very skeptical of evolution, but I totally disagree with the Big Bang theory, because it leaves too many "what ifs," for my liking.

 

[sr. scholls]

6) Fallible human product. Like the rest of the Bible, the Genesis account is not God's word, but a record of and reflections on a particular people's encounter with God. There's no reason to expect it not to contain errors, especially in matters that were outside the knowledge of the authors.




2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Note the, "given by inspiration of God" part.

 

[Arikay]

So far the big bang theory has yet to be falsified. And trust me, scientists are trying very hard to falsify it. Besides the knowledge, if someone was able to falsify the Big Bang Theory there would probably be a nobel prize in it for the researchers.

3rd April 2003 at 05:47 PM sr. scholls said this in Post #41

Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?

First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven.


Quoted from the website that you gave to me. I'm very skeptical of evolution, but I totally disagree with the Big Bang theory, because it leaves too many "what ifs," for my liking.

 

[Arikay]

The problem is that there are plenty of errors in the bible.

From saying that rabbits chew their own cud, to saying a bat is a bird, to getting ages and dates wrong (different in different verses).
thats not to mention the evidence against the bible.

The bible is gods inspired word. Inspired word on spirituality and inspired word on god, but not the inspired word of fact or science.

The bible isnt a science book, its a book about spirituality.

3rd April 2003 at 05:56 PM sr. scholls said this in Post #42

6) Fallible human product. Like the rest of the Bible, the Genesis account is not God's word, but a record of and reflections on a particular people's encounter with God. There's no reason to expect it not to contain errors, especially in matters that were outside the knowledge of the authors.




2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Note the, "given by inspiration of God" part.

 

[Cantuar]

OK, so that Timothy quote says scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for a bunch of things that don't include figuring out how the natural world works. None of that is inconsistent with a statement that it might contain errors in matters about which the authors were not knowledgeable. I mean, the Bible authors wouldn't have had the words available to describe the scientific version of the natural world, even if God had tried to tell them about genetics and plate tectonics and nuclear physics.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Scholls, please don't put words in  my mouth.  I never said anything about requiring a formal education.  What I did say is that a person better have a good understanding of a theory before they go trying to debate it.  Otherwise you get people making statements like "the big bang happened when two rocks collided in space".  If people want to flaunt thier ignorance, that is fine with me - but it is hardly a good way to begin a debate.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

3rd April 2003 at 08:47 PM sr. scholls said this in Post #41

Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?

First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. 

That's exactly the point and exactly why creationism has been falsified as a theory.

The "underlying theme" of creation cannot be scientifically proven or disproven because it is not a falsifiable concept relying purely on the supernatural.

Certain interpretations of Genesis 1 can be disproven however. A literal interpretation has been disproven, for example, because a literal interpretation cannot be true given the evidence.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

3rd April 2003 at 08:56 PM sr. scholls said this in Post #42

6) Fallible human product. Like the rest of the Bible, the Genesis account is not God's word, but a record of and reflections on a particular people's encounter with God. There's no reason to expect it not to contain errors, especially in matters that were outside the knowledge of the authors.




2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Note the, "given by inspiration of God" part.

Circular reasoning gets you nowhere.

 

[sr. scholls]

3rd April 2003 at 05:44 PM Late_Cretaceous said this in Post #46

Scholls, please don't put words in  my mouth.  I never said anything about requiring a formal education.  What I did say is that a person better have a good understanding of a theory before they go trying to debate it.  Otherwise you get people making statements like "the big bang happened when two rocks collided in space".  If people want to flaunt thier ignorance, that is fine with me - but it is hardly a good way to begin a debate.

 

So only debaters can be evolutionists? Granted that if they want to debate a theory they should know a little bit about what they are debating, but I never mentioned debating. I said someone without a degree is just as qualified to believe in a theory as anyone else. Not everyone, even ones with a formal education are skilled at debating. And I wouldn't really call this forum a good place for debating, because real debaters know both sides being discussed. I admit that I haven't written any hypotheses about the evolution of slugs (now their slime is more sticky!) And we all know that I haven't written any part of the New or Old Testament in my spare time. I do, however, think that non-believers have about as much understanding of the Bible as I do of Darwin's books. So I don't really think formal education is really an issue here, Christianity (specifically Creationism) is not an exclusive club, where only uber-intelligent individuals are allowed to discuss its knowledge and truths.

 

[sr. scholls]

Point me to specific examples in the Bible please, because I don't remember God saying that rabbits chew their own cud. It's agreed that I have limited knowledge of scientific theories, but at least I have looked at your websites with an attempt at understanding what you believe. It seems to me that none of you have researched the Bible for yourselves, so I haven't been given the same courtesy. You merely look at the works of scientists or theorists for your research on dismissing Creationism. I'd love you to prove me wrong though.

 

[sr. scholls]

3rd April 2003 at 05:27 PM Cantuar said this in Post #45

OK, so that Timothy quote says scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for a bunch of things that don't include figuring out how the natural world works. None of that is inconsistent with a statement that it might contain errors in matters about which the authors were not knowledgeable. I mean, the Bible authors wouldn't have had the words available to describe the scientific version of the natural world, even if God had tried to tell them about genetics and plate tectonics and nuclear physics.

It doesn't include figuring out how the natural world works, sure you're not just assuming this? "For doctrine, for reproof..." that doesn't specify that you can only be corrected in spiritual matters. Why, if it did, then I think it would have specified, "for doctrine, for reproof (only in spiritual matters) and for instruction in righteousness." But that would be kind of redundant because part of instruction is correction. A child may know how to tie their shoes, but are they on the right feet? If you yourself can disprove one verse in the Bible all by yourself, if you learn Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and study every version that is used as proof that the interpretations are wrong, then you can say that the Bible has errors, but right now you're just relying on someone else's word, and as we all know, people make mistakes. People lie, fabricate, and hide the truth, dissecting whatever the need. I'm not saying Christians or Creationists don't do this, but it's an endless cycle to try and tell me that what I believe is wrong, and what you believe is right. No matter what we discuss, all of it will be circular reasoning, because we have been given nothing else to go by. Science itself is a falsified theory,because not all of it has been proven to be an absolute true. Just because Cubic Zirconia looks like a diamond, is cut like a diamond, luminates like a diamond, does not make it a diamond.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

4th April 2003 at 12:04 PM sr. scholls said this in Post #51


Science itself is a falsified theory,because not all of it has been proven to be an absolute true. Just because Cubic Zirconia looks like a diamond, is cut like a diamond, luminates like a diamond, does not make it a diamond.

Just because something cannot be proven to be absolutely 100% true does not mean it is falsified. To falsify something is to demonstrate it must be false.

The Cubic Zirconia example is not very good because mineralogists would use different characteristics that illustrate that it is not much like diamond at all. Superficially, perhaps so. But that's besides the point.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

4th April 2003 at 10:50 AM sr. scholls said this in Post #50

Point me to specific examples in the Bible please, because I don't remember God saying that rabbits chew their own cud. It's agreed that I have limited knowledge of scientific theories, but at least I have looked at your websites with an attempt at understanding what you believe. It seems to me that none of you have researched the Bible for yourselves, so I haven't been given the same courtesy. You merely look at the works of scientists or theorists for your research on dismissing Creationism. I'd love you to prove me wrong though.

Lev 11:6
The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

All it took to find this was typing "cud" into Biblegateway's search engine. Oh, the irony.

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

"Science itself is a falsified theory,because not all of it has been proven to be an absolute true."

This sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Read it again and think about it.

 

[sr. scholls]

Everything that has to do with science is not true. It is a field of discovery, and as we all know, there are new discoveries made everyday in the vast world of science. We go by what is common during this age, replacing old theories with the new as we become more advanced and move on from the technological era to the information era. What I meant was that whatever may be true today can change tomorrow. Everything that we know now about the universe can be wrong. My definition of science as a whole is a field of advances available with the material and capacity that man has to work with now. It isn't a rock solid foundation, it changes periodically, the Bible, however, does not change. Only man's views do.

The reason I used cubic zirconia vs. a diamond as an example has nothing to do with its actual characteristics in relation with a diamond. Just the physical aspect. Man can't actually create a real diamond. He can replicate one, but it will never be the same as a real diamond from the Earth. Just the same way man replicates what God has created, but it will never be the same, it'll only appear the same from a distance. Man can't create a universe. You can debate that all you want, but for the time being, with what knowledge is given us now, it is true.


Btw, Ryan very nice. If I had been bluffing, (I tip my hat to you since I wasn't, never read that verse) I'm not so sure if anyone here would even make an attempt by themselves to find that scripture. Unfortunately, the irony was for you and you alone (non-specific) to find that scripture. You didn't actually do any of the work yourself.

 

[Cantuar]

Science itself is a falsified theory,because not all of it has been proven to be an_absolute true._Just because Cubic Zirconia looks like a diamond, is cut like a diamond, luminates like a diamond, does not make it a diamond.

Science is not a theory, it's a method to explain observations of natural phenomena and processes. The scientific method has not been demonstrated to be inapplicable to any aspect of that, so I don't know what you're talking about as far as it being a falsified theory. If the scientific method is used to show that one theory is a better explanation than an older version of the theory on the basis of new observations, the old theory may be falsified, but the scientific method certainly isn't. In fact it's validated every time something like that happens.

Man can't actually create a real diamond. He can replicate one, but it will never be the same as a real diamond from the Earth.

Chemically, synthetic stones are exactly the same as natural ones. These days the techniques are good enough that it's even hard to tell the stones apart microscopically. The only way that synthetic and natural stones are different is the way they were formed, not the properties they have when formed. Synthetic diamonds are now so similar to natural ones that they've got De Beers worried. Synthetic diamonds, by the way, are not the same as simulants like zirconia and moissonite, which are chemically different from diamond. Synthetic diamonds are diamonds.

 

[Cantuar]

If you yourself can disprove one verse in the Bible all by yourself, if you learn Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and study every version that is used as proof that the interpretations are wrong, then you can say that the Bible has errors, but right now you're just relying on someone else's word, and as we all know, people make mistakes.

Believe it or not, I'm not in the least bit interested in whether the Bible has errors. The translators of the New RSV have pointed out some contradictions; we're told at sites like this that there are no contradictions, yet these scholars seem to think otherwise. I very much douby that there'll ever be only one agreed-upon interpretation as long as you're dealing with ancient documents written in ancient languages.

People lie, fabricate, and hide the truth, dissecting whatever the need. I'm not saying Christians or Creationists don't do this, but it's an endless cycle to try and tell me that what I believe is wrong, and what you believe is right.

As far as science is concerned, it isn't a matter of what you or I or anybody else believes. Nor is it a matter of what the Bible says in whichever translation or interpretation people favour. The scientific method is used to explain the natural world on the basis of the laws of nature, by theory and experiment, and it isn't concerned one way or the other with the writings in anybody's holy books. If the results obtained by the scientific method don't agree with certain interpretations of certain holy books, then they don't agree. However, they can't be dismissed as scientifically wrong on that basis, because holy scripture isni't a scientific source. Scripture is irrelevant to science, which means that scientifically it doesn't override the results obtained by the scientific method. If you want to say that scientific results must be dismissed if your interpretation of the Bible contradicts them, then that's your business. If you want to start saying that your interpretation of the Bible is superior science to the scientific method, then that becomes the business of the scientific community because it's an attack on the very basis of science.

 

[Arikay]

You do notice the problem here right?

The problem is that the theory of a YEC global flood was believed at one point, and science did exactly what you are saying *might* happen to evolution, it falsified it 200 years ago and moved on to a better theory.

Today at 01:43 AM sr. scholls said this in Post #55

Everything that has to do with science is not true. It is a field of discovery, and as we all know, there are new discoveries made everyday in the vast world of science. We go by what is common during this age, replacing old theories with the new as we become more advanced and move on from the technological era to the information era. What I meant was that whatever may be true today can change tomorrow. Everything that we know now about the universe can be wrong. My definition of science as a whole is a field of advances available with the material and capacity that man has to work with now. It isn't a rock solid foundation, it changes periodically, the Bible, however, does not change. Only man's views do.

The reason I used cubic zirconia vs. a diamond as an example has nothing to do with its actual characteristics in relation with a diamond. Just the physical aspect. Man can't actually create a real diamond. He can replicate one, but it will never be the same as a real diamond from the Earth. Just the same way man replicates what God has created, but it will never be the same, it'll only appear the same from a distance. Man can't create a universe. You can debate that all you want, but for the time being, with what knowledge is given us now, it is true.


Btw, Ryan very nice. If I had been bluffing, (I tip my hat to you since I wasn't, never read that verse) I'm not so sure if anyone here would even make an attempt by themselves to find that scripture. Unfortunately, the irony was for you and you alone (non-specific) to find that scripture. You didn't actually do any of the work yourself.

 

[Merle]

Everything that has to do with science is not true. It is a field of discovery, and as we all know, there are new discoveries made everyday in the vast world of science.

All right, let's start with the basic stuff...I think you meant to say that "not everything that has to do with science is true". It's the and/or/nand/nor problem...get your Booleans right, okay?

Besides which, the whole point of science is that if something related to it is proven to be untrue, that is no longer a part of science. Phrenology and demonic possession used to be considered scientific, until they were disproven; now, they're nothing more than the domain of crackpots.

As for science being a "field of discovery" -well, that's a little sensationalist, but basically true. Science isn't ONLY a field of discovery, though - it's about refinement and refutation of theories as well as their formulation and study.

We go by what is common during this age, replacing old theories with the new as we become more advanced and move on from the technological era to the information era. What I meant was that whatever may be true today can change tomorrow.

Wrong. Plain and simply, wrong. We go by what theories are supported by the evidence we've collected so far. If a theory is completely correct, then it will agree with everything we see in the world and will never need to be changed; most theories are somewhat imperfect, and thus need to be refined. Many other theories are disproven by the evidence and have to be replaced. The truth itself, however, doesn't change; we're just doing our best to get closer to it.

Everything that we know now about the universe can be wrong. My definition of science as a whole is a field of advances available with the material and capacity that man has to work with now. It isn't a rock solid foundation, it changes periodically, the Bible, however, does not change. Only man's views do.

Um...the Bible DOES change. Do you know just how many translations, interpretations, and alternate versions of the Bible there are? Hell, which Bible are you even referring to? The Jewish Torah is wildly different from any Christian bible, and both are completely different from the Quran or Hindu texts or Buddhism or whatnot.

Also...any version of a Bible based on the Jewish Torah is inherently flawed. Hell, it gives two differeng accounts of Creation in the first two chapters, for crying out loud...

In any case, according to Dictionary.com science is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. " That sounds somewhat different from yours...

Religion claims to know everything, and refuses to change no matter what experience says. Science does lie on a rockhard foundation; it is based off of the evidence we've collected, which we use to figure out the laws by which the universe works.

The reason I used cubic zirconia vs. a diamond as an example has nothing to do with its actual characteristics in relation with a diamond. Just the physical aspect. Man can't actually create a real diamond. He can replicate one, but it will never be the same as a real diamond from the Earth. Just the same way man replicates what God has created, but it will never be the same, it'll only appear the same from a distance. Man can't create a universe. You can debate that all you want, but for the time being, with what knowledge is given us now, it is true.

The diamond analogy was never a favorite of mine...but someone else already replied to it, so I won't beat a dead horse.

So...just wondering, but what the HECK are you trying to say? That we can't create a universe, so there's no way we can understand how ours started?

I have yet to see ANY compelling evidence for God's existence. If God *does* exist, then He, She, It, or They will have to deal with me on a mano-y-deus basis. Omnipotence doesn't grant authority, or the right to determine what's right or wrong; not in my book, anyhow.

Btw, Ryan very nice. If I had been bluffing, (I tip my hat to you since I wasn't, never read that verse) I'm not so sure if anyone here would even make an attempt by themselves to find that scripture. Unfortunately, the irony was for you and you alone (non-specific) to find that scripture. You didn't actually do any of the work yourself.

So? He FOUND the scripture. Why does it matter who or what did the work? That seems like poisoning the well to me; an argument's validity doesn't rest on who makes it.

 

[Freodin]

Is it really necessary to revive this old thread?