A young sun - a response

Lizard Breath says:

quote:

---

I don't want to just accept the tools laid before me by either side in case I end up trying to repair an orbiting sattelite with specialized tools but meant for open heart surgery.

---

That's exactly why normal folks look on us EvC'ers as the scary bunch of shit-flinging bonobos we often are. It's abundantly clear that if you want the technical answer to why Seor Sun shines so nice, you don't go to the Bible, you go to a science class. If you want to understand God and the meaning of our existence, you don't look at the bacterial flagellum through a microscope, you do a lot of scriptural study, praying and meditating. You have to decide the right tools for the job at hand.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Lizard Breath,I was just trying to stick to the topic at hand: I realize that most people don't give a rat's ass about creo/evo and I don't blame them. They know instinctively that if you're looking for technical answers about solar fusion, you won't find them in the Bible. On the other hand, they also realize that the bacterial flagellum is a poor excuse for an answer about whether or not our lives have meaning and purpose.Your comment about tools for the job was very appropriate. You don't want to get stuck on a faulty space shuttle with a cardiologist's kit, and open heart surgery is a tough job when you're dressed up in a pressurized space suit with a rocket pack. Maybe it's materialistic to look at the Bible as a collection of ancient mythology, but it's twice as materialistic to expect the Bible to help you out with astrophysics.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Lizard Breath says:

quote:

---

The Bible is like the eye witnesses. The book of Genesis and primarily chapeters 1-3 are a spoken testimony of what happened given by one individual - God, or so the book claims. The account is in the perspective of the witness, again God.

---

I look at it as the stylized account written long after the 'fact,' like the Mailer or DeLillo novels that put the Kennedy assasination into a certain network of historical or philosophical reference points.

quote:

---

In the same manner the Bible isn't going to explain hydrogen fussion in the sun's core but it should not contradict the scientific model of the sun by saying it is 10,000 years old while science verifies it is 4.657 billion years.

---

Why wouldn't it contradict the scientific account? The writers of the Bible had no knowledge of nuclear fusion, and few people would assert that the Bible is meant to be read as a science book. Are you saying you'd think less of the Bible if it doesn't make scientific sense? That would sound strange coming from someone with a mature, realistic faith.

quote:

---

That's what I'm hoping to get at, is finding out if both science and the Bible are indeed telling the same story.

---

And what if they don't? Do you scrap your faith or mangle science to fit your wishful thinking? You could always put the two in their proper places and realize that one should speak to your soul while the other enriches your intellect. But you want it all in one convenient package, regardless of whether it makes a mockery of faith and science at the same time.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Lizard Breath,Your faith is not the issue here, it's cosmology.I admired what you said back in post #18, where your metaphor of 'tools for the job' crystallized what I believe about science and religion. I assert that if you're looking for God, science won't be much help. In addition, holy Scripture won't really help when the subject at hand is nuclear physics. Since then, however, you've changed your story, and now the Biblical account should be the same as the scientific one. "If they disagree," you state, "I stand on the Bible."Contrary to what Paul said, the wisdom of this world isn't folly. The fact that you're reading this on a computer is a testament to the utility of scientific progress. Everything we currently know about the universe is thanks to the tool box of science.So if you're going to use your faith in the Bible to look for answers concerning the age of the Sun, you must know of some applications of Scripture in astrophysics of which we're currently unaware. The rest of us stick with the tools that work.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Lizard Breath says:

quote:

---

I'm not going to stand with a telescope in one hand and the New Living Translation in the other and cross out the galaxies that don't jive with the Genesis account.

---

You're not? You said before that when science and the Bible disagree, you stand on the Bible. You obviously feel that God doesn't want you to understand natural phenomena the same way atheists do, because when your faith is confronted with reality, you deny reality. And that's what you call an informed, mature, realistic faith?

quote:

---

I want to know exactly,if possible, the jest of what the Bible is saying about the hows and whats of the construction of this place, and digest the science using the Bible as a fork and spoon

---

This makes absolutely no sense. If you really think the Bible was intended to be used as a science book, that's your choice. But does it work? Give me an example of how this methodology has been useful in your quest for answers about the age of the Sun.

quote:

---

I thought it noteworthy to answer the question as to why I felt the Bible and science should agree if they are telling the same story. If they are telling a different story, then either one or the other or both has issues.

---

Every time we compare them, however, they seem to tell different stories. That's why we conclude that one is intended for spiritual guidance and the other is for understanding the material bases of natural phenomena. Like we've been saying, what good has one set of tools ever been for doing the other job?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall