Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible acceptable?
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 16 of 111 (455602)
02-13-2008 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ICANT
02-12-2008 11:36 PM


Re: Re Nothing Proven
Genesis 1:1 still is true.
Well, if you ignore the parts where it said the heavens and Earth were created first, and where it credits god with the deed, yes, science has confirmed that everything else in Genesis 1:1 is true.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2008 11:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2008 12:44 AM subbie has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 17 of 111 (455605)
02-13-2008 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by subbie
02-13-2008 12:13 AM


Re: Re Nothing Proven
Hi subbie,
Genesis 1:1 says the heaven and the earth had a beginning.
Science says the heaven and the earth had a beginning.
Or am I misunderstanding what science says?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 02-13-2008 12:13 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by subbie, posted 02-13-2008 9:40 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 25 by ramoss, posted 02-25-2008 1:21 PM ICANT has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 18 of 111 (455646)
02-13-2008 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by ICANT
02-13-2008 12:44 AM


Re: Re Nothing Proven
I don't think you misunderstand what science says, or what Genesis 1:1 says. I think you are just ignoring the parts that are irrelevant or contrary to the point that you are trying to make.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2008 12:44 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2008 2:52 PM subbie has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 19 of 111 (455727)
02-13-2008 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by subbie
02-13-2008 9:40 AM


Re: Re Nothing Proven
Hi subbie,
subbie writes:
the point that you are trying to make.
Which is?
I thought I was trying to say the Bible and Science agree that the universe had a beginning. Did I fall overboard somewhere?
I was not trying to say that they agree on how it happened.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by subbie, posted 02-13-2008 9:40 AM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2008 5:03 PM ICANT has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 111 (455756)
02-13-2008 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ICANT
02-13-2008 2:52 PM


Re: Re Nothing Proven
I thought I was trying to say the Bible and Science agree that the universe had a beginning. Did I fall overboard somewhere?
Do you think it is possible that when Prof. Hawking said that time had a beginning, that he was using dumbed-down terminology to express an idea to people that wouldn't understand the maths?
And also that his use of the word "beginning" is totally different than the creation ex nihilo that is implied in the Bible. Do you think that is possible at all?
Science and the Bible DO NOT agree that the universe had a beginning. Science still doesn't know and it most certainly is not the creation ex nihilo that the Bible is talking about so even if science does come to a consensus, its beginning will still be different from the Bible's beginning.
Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2008 2:52 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2008 5:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 21 of 111 (455760)
02-13-2008 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
02-13-2008 5:03 PM


Re Nothing Proven
Hi CS
Catholic Scientist writes:
Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.
Are you saying the accepted Big Bang Theory does not put forth that the Universe had a beginning about 13+ billion years ago?
I have never said God created the universe ex nihilo.
You can move the date for natural creation as far back as you want somewhere you must find a beginning. Because it is and we are.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2008 5:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2008 5:23 PM ICANT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 111 (455763)
02-13-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ICANT
02-13-2008 5:16 PM


Re: Re Nothing Proven
Are you saying the accepted Big Bang Theory does not put forth that the Universe had a beginning about 13+ billion years ago?
Yes.
And when Prof. Hawking says that it had a beginning, he does not mean "beginning" in the way you are using it.
You can move the date for natural creation as far back as you want somewhere you must find a beginning. Because it is and we are.
Or its eternal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2008 5:16 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Logic, posted 02-13-2008 7:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Logic
Member (Idle past 5015 days)
Posts: 31
From: Australia
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 23 of 111 (455787)
02-13-2008 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
02-13-2008 5:23 PM


Why we debating such an irrelevant topic here, God can’t even get his basic sciences right let alone create a universe
1) [GE 1:3-5] On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
2) [GE 1:14-19] The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
Apparently God doesn’t know anything about how light works ... hmmm wonder what was glowing at that moment ... oh and you can't separate darkness ... darkness is the absence of light.
The End

RO 15:33, 2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is a god of love and peace.
EX 15:3, 17:16, NU 25:4, 32:14, IS 42:13 [God is a man of war--he is fierce and angry]
Make up your mind >.<

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2008 5:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 24 of 111 (457762)
02-25-2008 11:47 AM


Faith-based
People of "faith" need to stop trying to support their "faith" with "fact." Just have one's "faith" and keep it to yourselves. Furthermore, the English Bible is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew Tanakh. If it were an accurate translation those who read the Bible would not be constantly trying to take it "literally," but would instead learn to comprehend what is being conveyed in a figurative, metaphorical, proverbial sense. For example:
In the Gen. 1 creation account the author describes the plants and trees sprouting on the third day of creation, but it is not until the fourth day of creation that the sun and moon come into play. If you take what is conveyed by the author "literally" the author is rendered a fool, and the Deity appears rather foolish as well. Though the author of this ancient text was perhaps more primitive than we now perceive ourselves, I doubt seriously that he/she was a fool.
Give it some thought;
Ger

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 25 of 111 (457772)
02-25-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ICANT
02-13-2008 12:44 AM


Re: Re Nothing Proven
Well, if you read it again, you will see that while 'heaven and earth' had a beginning, the spirit of God formed the heaven and earth by moving over the waters, and separating land from the water (which symbolically meant order from chaos). Genesis is written as of God used preexisting materials.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2008 12:44 AM ICANT has not replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 26 of 111 (457795)
02-25-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Reality Man
02-11-2008 3:59 PM


Reality Man writes:
Is the Bible acceptable in discussions? Is it not ignorant to say, "well in the bible, it says" etc.
It is just as ignorant to say, "well Darwin says". To believe the Bible is an act of faith, to believe Darwin is also an act of faith. It is the job of both faiths to interpret science.
To take the Bible away is to take away your faith, to take your faith is to take your interpretation, and without your interpretation you have nothing to say about science. It is the same with Darwin.
How strong is your faith in Darwin? Darwin was not even sure what he believed was true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Reality Man, posted 02-11-2008 3:59 PM Reality Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2008 4:08 PM graft2vine has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 27 of 111 (457802)
02-25-2008 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by graft2vine
02-25-2008 3:38 PM


quote:
It is just as ignorant to say, "well Darwin says". To believe the Bible is an act of faith, to believe Darwin is also an act of faith. It is the job of both faiths to interpret science.
How often do you see anyone on the evolution side appealing to Darwin, except when Darwin's words or beliefs are the issue at hand ? We know that Darwin - for all his greatness - is not the last word. We know that many people have built on, extended and improved his work. There is no "faith of Darwin" competing with creationism - only science.
quote:
How strong is your faith in Darwin? Darwin was not even sure what he believed was true.
And Darwin's uncertainty - the uncertainty of the scientist - is one reason why it would be better to appeal to what he said than it would be to appeal to the Bible. Darwin was aware of the limitations of the knowledge of his time, and took great care to investigate and consider the evidence. The humility of doubt is a far better guide to reliability than the false certainty of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by graft2vine, posted 02-25-2008 3:38 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by graft2vine, posted 02-25-2008 5:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 28 of 111 (457817)
02-25-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
02-25-2008 4:08 PM


How often do you see anyone on the evolution side appealing to Darwin, except when Darwin's words or beliefs are the issue at hand ? We know that Darwin - for all his greatness - is not the last word. We know that many people have built on, extended and improved his work.
By "faith of Darwin" I mean evolution, which in its basic theory remains pretty much the same as in its original form. Darwin questioned the whole theory... to build upon that is to build on shaky ground.
There is no "faith of Darwin" competing with creationism - only science.
It is evolution that competes with creationism, not science. Science presents obsticals that have to be addressed by both. The Bible is the backbone of creation, and Darwin the backbone of evolution.
Darwin was aware of the limitations of the knowledge of his time, and took great care to investigate and consider the evidence. The humility of doubt is a far better guide to reliability than the false certainty of faith.
Doubt = reliability? hmmm. Is doubt in evolution what drives people to pursue it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2008 4:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2008 5:56 PM graft2vine has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 111 (457825)
02-25-2008 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by graft2vine
02-25-2008 5:31 PM


quote:
By "faith of Darwin" I mean evolution, which in its basic theory remains pretty much the same as in its original form.
But nobody believes that because of faith in Darwin. There has been a huge amount of scientific work since Darwin. If the basics of the theory haven't changed it's because they have stood up to investigation.
quote:
Darwin questioned the whole theory... to build upon that is to build on shaky ground.
That's wrong, as I said. Darwin's doubts are a strength, not a weakness. That's because Darwin was a scientist, not a preacher - and because evolution is science, not religion.
quote:
It is evolution that competes with creationism, not science.
You contradicted yourself there. Evolution IS science. That's why Darwin's doubts aren't a weakness and why evolution is not founded on faith in Darwin.
quote:
Doubt = reliability? hmmm. Is doubt in evolution what drives people to pursue it?
Sure it is. People who doubt take the time to check - they do the work, to try to get it right. That's what Darwin did. People who have huge faith in their own ideas - like many creationists - don't bother to check and often get things very badly wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by graft2vine, posted 02-25-2008 5:31 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by autumnman, posted 02-25-2008 7:39 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 31 by graft2vine, posted 02-26-2008 1:29 AM PaulK has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 30 of 111 (457844)
02-25-2008 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
02-25-2008 5:56 PM


facts & faith are not synonymous
Science deals with actual, real and true facts. Science may not fully comprehend these facts, but the facts truely exist regardless of how much science is capable of explaining them. Thus, the word "theory" is employed regarding the capability of sciene to explain the facts. Gravity is a natural force of nature that we all experience. Science attempts to explain the force of gravity with a "theory of gravity." Evolution is a naturally occuring phenomena, and science attempts to explain the phenomena of evolution with a "theory of evolution."
Religion deals with "faith" that does not require an explanation based on facts. Jesus was born of a virgin and walked on water and rose the dead. There is no empirical evidence to support such claims and so Religion must take the claims that these events occured on "faith."
At this point in time the above is the best I can do to explain the difference between "science & facts" and "religion & faith."
Regards;
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2008 5:56 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024