Origin of Life

[Critias]

So, was Galileo right or wrong?

Hey Notto, what is the authors intended meaning of the passage you are refering to?

You brought this up, bring out the verses within their context and let's discuss them and see what the author actually intended to say, shall we?

 

[notto]

Hey Notto, what is the authors intended meaning of the passage you are refering to?

You brought this up, bring out the verses within their context and let's discuss them and see what the author actually intended to say, shall we?

According to those that put Galileo on trial, the plain reading of scripture was very clear. The earth was the center of the universe and the sun and stars went around it. Scientific investigation showed differently. Obviously, the interpretation of evidence of man was right over the interpretation of scripture. Who is to determine the intended meaning of the bible? That is an interpretation just as the interpretation of those that accused Galileo. They claimed to know the intended meaning of the verses. Their interpretation conflicted with the actual creation. They were wrong.

 

[Critias]

Nice side step. Can you answer the question or do not want to? If you don't, that is fine.

 

[notto]

Nice side step. Can you answer the question or do not want to? If you don't, that is fine.

Was Galileo's assesement of the physical creation right or wrong?

Why would scientific investigation of the creation not lead us to the correct answer about creation regardless of what the Bible is interpreted to mean? It worked for Galileo a few hundred years ago. What has changed?

How was the method and approach that Christian scientists and early Christian geologists took when they discovered the earth was really old different than Galileo's approach?

How is the method that mainstream scientists (who are Christian and don't sign statements that show they won't approach things scientifically) take today different than Galileos approach?

What difference does it make about how the bible is interpreted if we are studying the actual creation?

Can the creation lie to us? I don't think it can. Neither did Galileo.

Any conclusion about the 'authors original intent' of scriptures is interpretive.

Conclusion based on the evidence of the creation (especially ones that hold up to mainstream criticism, constant testing, and peer review of hundreds of years) are highly unlikely to lead us to a false conclusion.

Galileo was right, no matter how somebody interprets scripture. The earth is old no matter how somebody interprets scripture.

 

[gluadys]

I remember someone had something very similar as part of their sig at one time. Something to the effect of "When science and the Bible contradict one another you can rest assured that the problem lies in our interpretation of Scripture." or something like that. I always like that quote.

There are several variations on that one. I believe Maimonides is sometimes cited as the originator.

lucaspa had two quotes in his signature from a 19th century commentator that I liked.

"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.

"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.

 

[artybloke]

Any conclusion about the 'authors original intent' of scriptures is interpretive.

That should be written in bold. There's no way anyone could know exactly what the authors' original intentions were because they're not around to ask.

Though we can rule certains things out. They were not attempting to write a scientific treatise, because such things hadn't been invented yet.

 

[Micaiah]

Can the creation lie to us? I don't think it can. Neither did Galileo.

The obvious answer is that man's interpretation of the physical evidence can be wrong.

Do you believe that God was able to communicate scientific facts to the first humans in a way that they could understand if He chose to do so?

 

[notto]

The obvious answer is that man's interpretation of the physical evidence can be wrong.

Do you believe that God was able to communicate scientific facts to the first humans in a way that they could understand if He chose to do so?

Sure, but obviously it took us awhile to get it right. Just ask Galileo!

Young earth creationism has been shown to be an incorrect interprtation o the physical evidence. It is as wrong as claiming that the earth is the center of the solar system.

The same dedicated research and observation by a multitude of scientists from all faiths, backgrounds, and timeframes has shown us this. Just as those that claimed Galileo was wrong were shown to be in error, the evidence shows that the young earth interpretation of the scriptures is incorrect. The actual creation points us to a different conclusion than that interpretation of scripture.

 

[Micaiah]

People in bygone years forced an interpretation on Scripture that made it say what was popularly accepted as scientific fact. Sound familiar?

Do you believe that God was able to communicate scientific facts to the first humans in a way that they could understand if He chose to do so?

 

[Critias]

Was Galileo's assesement of the physical creation right or wrong?

Why would scientific investigation of the creation not lead us to the correct answer about creation regardless of what the Bible is interpreted to mean? It worked for Galileo a few hundred years ago. What has changed?

How was the method and approach that Christian scientists and early Christian geologists took when they discovered the earth was really old different than Galileo's approach?

How is the method that mainstream scientists (who are Christian and don't sign statements that show they won't approach things scientifically) take today different than Galileos approach?

What difference does it make about how the bible is interpreted if we are studying the actual creation?

Still not answering my question, Notto....

Can the creation lie to us? I don't think it can. Neither did Galileo.

Oh, here it is again, for the countless time in this forum. Does creation speak on its own or is there a human interpreter involved? Does creation stand up, using sound waves to convey what it has seen over the years, or does man tell us what it has seen over the years??

Any conclusion about the 'authors original intent' of scriptures is interpretive.

Nice side step, again. Basically, what you are telling us all, is that when we read anything, we can never truly understand what the author meant to say.

Conclusion based on the evidence of the creation (especially ones that hold up to mainstream criticism, constant testing, and peer review of hundreds of years) are highly unlikely to lead us to a false conclusion.

Galileo was right, no matter how somebody interprets scripture. The earth is old no matter how somebody interprets scripture.

Show me where and how creation speaks in an audible voice and tells us her history? Or could it be that scientists take part in this....

 

[Critias]

That should be written in bold. There's no way anyone could know exactly what the authors' original intentions were because they're not around to ask.

Though we can rule certains things out. They were not attempting to write a scientific treatise, because such things hadn't been invented yet.

Who said the author intended to write about science? I see TEs deny water being turned into wine as not being science, yet one could study it.


Does this mean when Jesus turned water into wine, the Bible is talking about science because science could try and study something like this if they had the evidence to look at? No. And if we had the evidence, I would assume TEs would reject this teaching in the Bible.

 

[notto]

People in bygone years forced an interpretation on Scripture that made it say what was popularly accepted as scientific fact. Sound familiar?

I think you have that backwards - as the Galileo trial showed.

Where did people in bygone years get their 'popular' ideas about creation?

It wasn't from science, it was from the church.

 

[notto]

Nice side step, again. Basically, what you are telling us all, is that when we read anything, we can never truly understand what the author meant to say.

And you are saying that we can't study creation and truly understand it.

As has been shown, the understanding of what the author meant to say has been incorrect in the past to the point of calling a man who was right a heretic.

What is to say that your interpretation is not as wrong as those that accused Galileo?

Why can't we study the creation and determine its age, how it works, and what it tells us about the nature of God?

 

[Critias]

And you are saying that we can't study creation and truly understand it.

Strawman.

As has been shown, the understanding of what the author meant to say has been incorrect in the past to the point of calling a man who was right a heretic.

Feel free to show why Genesis is not a narrative when looked at in its original language of Hebrew....

What is to say that your interpretation is not as wrong as those that accused Galileo?

There is nothing that says I am absolutely correct. I believe it by faith. I don't look to see what the current trend of scientists are saying today and then follow them.

Why can't we study the creation and determine its age, how it works, and what it tells us about the nature of God?

Strawman again. You know full well I didn't say this.

Tell me how you comprehend a billion years or even a million. Tell me what that amount of time is exactly like.

I am coming to the conclusion that many TEs here do not really comprehend time.

 

[notto]

Basically, what you are telling us all, is that when we read anything, we can never truly understand what the author meant to say.

Strawman.

Show me where and how creation speaks in an audible voice and tells us her history?

Strawman

 

[notto]

Feel free to show why Genesis is not a narrative when looked at in its original language of Hebrew....

Why aren't more Jewish scholars young earth creationists?

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jwst/sci.htm

 

[Critias]

Strawman.

Any conclusion about the 'authors original intent' of scriptures is interpretive. -- Notto post #24

Strawman

Can the creation lie to us? -- Notto post #24

 

[Critias]

Why aren't more Jewish scholars young earth creationists?

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jwst/sci.htm

Nice modern approach, why not look into how the ancients view it??

 

[notto]

Nice modern approach, why not look into how the ancients view it??

Can you give us a few references?

 

[Critias]

Google Philo to start. His works will give you enough reading to begin.