The Bible supports Science

[randman]

"Sounds to me like a ringing endorsement in favor of studying the material world in order to understand the true nature of God."

Please note the idea of God in your statement. Nature is to be looked at for theological insight.

 

[Jerry Smith]

"Sounds to me like a ringing endorsement in favor of studying the material world in order to understand the true nature of God."

Please note the idea of God in your statement. Nature is to be looked at for theological insight.

And not vice-versa...

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Romans 1:20-22
20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made. So [men] are without excuse

So here the Bible is clearly telling us that God's nature has been made "intelligible and clearly discernible" in nature. In other words, what we can observe and experience in nature is evidence of the true nature of God.

First of all, you had to substitute "nature" for "the things that have been made" to imagine your view.

Second, the text begins with "For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes...have been made intelligible and clearly discernible"

It has been obvious ever since the beginning of the world? Wow, I can see it now.

"Hey, Joe, see dat molten lump over dere? Ya can see da whole invisible nature of the Creator in dat lump, doncha tink?"

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

"Sounds to me like a ringing endorsement in favor of studying the material world in order to understand the true nature of God."

Please note the idea of God in your statement. Nature is to be looked at for theological insight.

And not vice-versa...

Romans 1
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].
23 And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.

Say, Jerry, why don't you go visit my challenge thread? There are some very pretty images in there that might interest you.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
First of all, you had to substitute "nature" for "the things that have been made" to imagine your view.

Yep.  If God created everything in nature, then I think the substitution makes perfect sense.

Second, the text begins with "For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes...have been made intelligible and clearly discernible"

It has been obvious ever since the beginning of the world? Wow, I can see it now.

Well, you had to substitute "obvious" for "intelligible and clearly discernable" to imagine your view.

 

[Lanakila]

The Bible isn't a science textbook, it does contain scientific facts though. The creation does glorify God. Believing that the world has developed to the degree that it has through evolution, which is based on death (survival of the fitest) does not glorify God. It does take a degree of faith to accept evolutionary theory because most layman and even scientists don't know how or why everything they suspect happened, happened. They just accept it on "faith" of what they have been told as a fact, not a theory.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Believing that the world has developed to the degree that it has through evolution, which is based on death (survival of the fitest) does not glorify God.

Survival of the fittest is just a charicature of natural selection, but it is a popular one, so let's run with it. Survival is the opposite of death, therefore, by your logic evolution glorifies God.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley
Nick:Romans 1
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].
23 And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.

What prompted you to re-write verse 23? God's original not good enough for you?

Say, Jerry, why don't you go visit my challenge thread? There are some very pretty images in there that might interest you.

'cause I got me a challenge thread of my own... and when you go, why don't you take the original, un-edited 2 Chronicles 18:21-22 with you:

21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And [the LORD] said, Thou shalt entice [him], and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do [even] so.
22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

Romans 1
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].
23 And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.

This is a discussion of idolatry. It certainly has no relevance to creation/evolution, unless you can provide evidence of someone on some side of that debate who is worshipping trilobites.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Souljah,

Is the liniage given for Jesus (take your pick of which one you like) to be taken literaly or figuratively?

Are the ages given in the old testament to be taken literaly or figuritivly?

Add the ages igiven for those on the liniage, starting with how old Adam was when Seth was born and so on, add the six days for creation and any other factors and I beleive it comes to about 6,000 years or so. There is no one verse and you know that.

If the liniaga and/or ages that the Bible gives are not ment to be taken literaly explain why not and why the creation story must be taken literaly.

Although there may be some problems regarding the ages of some of the people listed in the lineages at the time the next person in the line of promise was born, the primary area of dispute seems to be with how to measure the "six days" of creation. For a more complete discussion of this problem and the primary interpretations, please go to this site.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Lanakila
The Bible isn't a science textbook, it does contain scientific facts though.

Yeah, so does Ender's Game. That doesn't mean I can use Card's story to prove that instantanous communciation is possible.

Believing that the world has developed to the degree that it has through evolution, which is based on death (survival of the fitest) does not glorify God.

Is this the same God who is reported to have killed off most of life on this planet in a flood because they didn't do right? It sure doesn't seem like He is too afraid to use death to accomplish His goals. Or are you talking about another God?

The accuracy of science cannot be determined by philosophy, politics, emotion, or religion. So the accuracy of natural selection is not dependent on whether you feel it glorifies God or not.

Furthermore, Lanakila, I wish you would be a little more consistant with your position. In the past you have said that microevolution is true and part of God's creation. Now you are saying that the primary force behind microevolution, natural selection, is ungodly thus implying that it is false? Now which part of the contradiction do you really believe?

It does take a degree of faith to accept evolutionary theory because most layman and even scientists don't know how or why everything they suspect happened, happened. They just accept it on "faith" of what they have been told as a fact, not a theory.

They accept it for the same reason why people accept the concensus of other scientists: the scientific method.

Now, if you know of reasons why the application of the scientific method by biologists shouldn't be trusted, I would be happy to hear them.

Furthermore, you argument rests on confusing the scientific and popular terminology. (Hint: the fact of evolution is only strethened by having a scientific theory behind it.)

Read this for a good treatment of scientific terminology.

And to end:

Biological/organismal evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that the properties of populations and lineages of organisms, or frequencies of such properties, change over time. The theory of evolution explains this observation by identifying mechanisms that are responsible for it. Such mechanisms include mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and isolation. Evolution operates on and is observable in populations.