Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lethal: You're last post to me is exactly my point. While I do value the scientific method, personally the Bible is my ultimate authority and that is because of my faith. I look at current science and see if matches the Bible (the majority of the time it does) while you do the opposite. Unlike modern science, the Bible doesn't change on a yearly basis and was not thought up by humans. I'm sorry that you can't understand this, I can only pray that one day you do.
I appreciate your prayer as it seems sincere, though of course I don't accept prayer as a useful method other than to comfort the one praying.
I'm interested in science only. Since the bible is unscientific, I cannot consider it anything other than an interesting book of mythology. (With references to some non-magical events, places and people.)
Science corrects science as needed. That's the beauty of it. As more is learned, the body of work advances. The process is what we find interesting. Whereas the bible is a static, non-changing doctrine based on man's understanding in the Bronze Age. We've made advances since then. We know the bible is scientifically incorrect, so we place it on the shelf along with Greek, Roman and Norse (insert culture) mythology.
We're focused on secular science, and all the great discoveries to come.
That's a fine stance to take since at least there is less chance that we'll get sidetracked.
Oh my no, young earth creationism is mostly an american phenomenon that became popular from the 20's on. Most of christianity doesn't take a 6 day creation literally and instead accept an old earth with an even older universe and varying levels of theistic evolution.
How does that sidetrack the issue? I was simply stating my opinion, just as you have.
And I was referring to American Christians when I said that. Let me rephrase because it doesn't seem to have reached you yet: An Old Earth does not rule out the possibility of a recent Flood.
I appreciate your prayer as it seems sincere, though of course I don't accept prayer as a useful method other than to comfort the one praying.
I'm interested in science only. Since the bible is unscientific, I cannot consider it anything other than an interesting book of mythology. (With references to some non-magical events, places and people.)
Science corrects science as needed. That's the beauty of it. As more is learned, the body of work advances. The process is what we find interesting. Whereas the bible is a static, non-changing doctrine based on man's understanding in the Bronze Age. We've made advances since then. We know the bible is scientifically incorrect, so we place it on the shelf along with Greek, Roman and Norse (insert culture) mythology.
We're focused on secular science, and all the great discoveries to come.
Science corrects science, that is true. But I believe the Bible doesn't need change because it is in fact.
For an "unscientific" book, the Bible contains much science:
Job 38:16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea?..." I don't believe we discovered hot water vents until the 20th century.
Or how about when the Bible describes both the Coriolis effect on the atmosphere (6) and the water cycle? (7)Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 "The wind blows to the South and turns to the North; round and round it goes, ever returning to its course. 7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again".
The Bible was written way before the invention of telescopes yet I Corinthians 15:41 talks about the uniqueness of stars. "The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another, and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor".
The Bible doesn't try to be a textbook, it's main purpose is to show humanity the path of salvation through Christ. However, scientific truths are throughout. Thankfully, the writers of the Bible didnt rely on the current scientific methods and their own knowledge-instead they got their inspiration from God.
Science corrects science, that is true. But I believe the Bible doesn't need change because it is in fact.
For an "unscientific" book, the Bible contains much science:
Job 38:16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea?..." I don't believe we discovered hot water vents until the 20th century.
Or how about when the Bible describes both the Coriolis effect on the atmosphere (6) and the water cycle? (7)Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 "The wind blows to the South and turns to the North; round and round it goes, ever returning to its course. 7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again".
The Bible was written way before the invention of telescopes yet I Corinthians 15:41 talks about the uniqueness of stars. "The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another, and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor".
The Bible doesn't try to be a textbook, it's main purpose is to show humanity the path of salvation through Christ. However, scientific truths are throughout. Thankfully, the writers of the Bible didnt rely on the current scientific methods and their own knowledge-instead they got their inspiration from God.
The springs of the sea is not referring to under sea vents, but to natural hot springs...There are many along the sea coast where I live, and they exist anywhere there is tectonic plate activity.
Atmosphere and rain cycle and differences in stars, the moon and sun were easily observable even then.
The springs of the sea is not referring to under sea vents, but to natural hot springs...There are many along the sea coast where I live, and they exist anywhere there is tectonic plate activity.
Atmosphere and rain cycle and differences in stars, the moon and sun were easily observable even then.
No, the verse is referring to deep sea vents. I didn't quote the second half of the verse: "or walked in the recesses of the deep?". Why would it jump from coastal hot springs to under the ocean in the second part? Also, why would God have asked Job if he had traveled to a coastal spring? God was telling Job how much superior He was so why would he refer to a nearby spring?
How did they know of the Coriolis Effect back then? The water cycle: I wasn't saying that people hadnt discovered it back then, I was only showing that the Bible includes science.
There are some variations in starlight visible to the naked eye but most stars appear the same.
Try to read these verses objectively, with an open mind. You can't just skim them, they must be read in context and thought about.
Science corrects science, that is true. But I believe the Bible doesn't need change because it is in fact.
For an "unscientific" book, the Bible contains much science:
Job 38:16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea?..." I don't believe we discovered hot water vents until the 20th century.
Or how about when the Bible describes both the Coriolis effect on the atmosphere (6) and the water cycle? (7)Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 "The wind blows to the South and turns to the North; round and round it goes, ever returning to its course. 7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again".
The Bible was written way before the invention of telescopes yet I Corinthians 15:41 talks about the uniqueness of stars. "The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another, and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor".
The Bible doesn't try to be a textbook, it's main purpose is to show humanity the path of salvation through Christ. However, scientific truths are throughout. Thankfully, the writers of the Bible didnt rely on the current scientific methods and their own knowledge-instead they got their inspiration from God.
Why is did the Catholic Church threaten Galileo with heresy when he popularized a heliocentric solar system?
Why is Evolution still denied by fundamentalists?
Why do fundamentalists believe in talking donkeys and talking snakes?
Why do fundamentalists believe in a global flood? They didn't even know what global was.
Some "scientific truths."
Last edited by JohnJLethal; 11-14-2008 at 03:37 PM..
The Bible was written way before the invention of telescopes yet I Corinthians 15:41 talks about the uniqueness of stars. "The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another, and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor".
Proving that Paul didn't know that the sun IS a star. Sure "star differs from star" but he clearly separated the sun from the stars.
Although what this has to do with Noah's Ark I am unsure.
Why is did the Catholic Church threaten Galileo with heresy when he popularized a heliocentric solar system?
Because that wasn't the scientific consensus at the time. The science had already been settled and Galileo was questioning scientific "fact".
Your question is an incrimination of science not religion.
Quote:
Why is Evolution still denied by fundamentalists?
Most religious people aren't fundamentalists. That classification in general denotes a certain "type" of person that I don't think is a fair characterization of most christians.
However, that being said, evolution is only provable to a certain point and is only seen to a limited degree within each species. There is absolutely no credible evidence of evolution from a common ancestory.
All things evolving from a single cell organism is no more "proven" than God creating all things from the dust of the earth.
Quote:
Why do fundamentalists believe in a global flood? They didn't even know what global was.
"They" believed what god told them and I'm pretty sure God understood the concept of global".
Because that wasn't the scientific consensus at the time. The science had already been settled and Galileo was questioning scientific "fact".
Your question is an incrimination of science not religion.
Most religious people aren't fundamentalists. That classification in general denotes a certain "type" of person that I don't think is a fair characterization of most christians.
However, that being said, evolution is only provable to a certain point and is only seen to a limited degree within each species. There is absolutely no credible evidence of evolution from a common ancestory.
All things evolving from a single cell organism is no more "proven" than God creating all things from the dust of the earth.
"They" believed what god told them and I'm pretty sure God understood the concept of global".
Science is about questioning the "facts", and is never settled. That's how science works. Evolution has a lot more evidence than you are willing to admit...Denial has no place in the field of science, nor does God or the bible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God was telling Job how much superior He was so why would he refer to a nearby spring?
