1
   

Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Science, Religion, Bible
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:47 am
What the Ginril said . . .
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:51 am
farmerman wrote:
neo
Quote:
So evolutionary scientists are claiming that "NONE of the existing data refutes." the hypothesis of evolution?



NONE of the existing data /evidence refutes the THEORY of evolution by nat selection. Almost Every piece of evidence refutes Creationism, and hardly ant even comes close to supporting it.
HMMM!

OK, noted.

You speak of the term creationism as if the STORY of the bible were a scientific treatise. It is not. But it is ignored at a price.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:53 am
Setanta wrote:
What the Ginril said . . .
Yeah, sure; OK; You betcha; Good mornin' to ya.

Both a ya
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:59 am
farmerman wrote:
neo
Quote:
So evolutionary scientists are claiming that "NONE of the existing data refutes." the hypothesis of evolution?

NONE of the existing data /evidence refutes the THEORY of evolution by nat selection. Almost Every piece of evidence refutes Creationism, and hardly ant even comes close to supporting it.

Yes. I would also add that the theory of evolution, as with all scientific theories, is a RESULT of the evidence, so it should surprise nobody that the evidence doesn't refute it (otherwise the theory would have been scrapped or modified to fit the evidence long ago).
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 12:40 pm
real life wrote:
Terry wrote:
Evolution explains the entire fossil record and predicts the kinds we might find in any given layer of rock.


It predicts that there should be millions of transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian explosion. But they aren't there.

The absence of living transitional forms is also a huge problem. If evolution is occurring today, then transitionals should be the overwhelming majority of species. But they aren't there either.

Fossilization is rare. Most animals are eaten or decay, in the absence of special events such as the mud flows that buried the Burgess Shale specimens, volvanic ash, tar pits, or other anoxic conditions?.

Where there are fossils, they are predictable and invariably reflect the species present at that point in evolution. There are no fish or birds in the Burgess shale, and many of the creatures present no longer exist. How does the Bible explain these findings?

Quote:
Terry wrote:
The Bible fails to explain why God created animals, killed them off, created slightly different models, killed them off, tried a new design, killed them off, and kept revising his creation over and over and over until he came up with the present assortment - but still isn't happy with the virulence of pathogens and has to keep changing them to create even more suffering on earth.



Could the reason that the 'Bible fails to explain' this be that it didn't happen that way?

How DOES the Bible explain the changes in kinds of animals reflected by the fossil record? Exactly how DOES the Bible explain lethal pathogens? Do you think God deliberately created the Ebola virus? If not, where did it come from? Do you believe in demonic possession, as Jesus did?
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 01:27 pm
Baddog1, re your link regarding the sun standing still so that Joshua could kill more people, it seems to give equal credence to a no-longer-existing Chinese tale of the sun not setting for 10 days and a Dogrib Indian tale of the sun being caught in a trap at noon and it instantly became dark (which was obviously a solar eclipse, if it was related to the story in Joshua it would have happened at night in North America). There are thousands of other folktales, myths, legends, morality tales, and creation stories in existence that are ignored by Biblical scholars, and even these carefully-selected few differ in enough details that they cannot legitimately be used to corraborate the dubious event in Joshua.

Your source concludes that:
Quote:
Attempts to phenomenalize Joshua's long day or to make it allegorical thus fail. Christians and Jewish people are presented with a real historical event in Joshua 10:12-14. The central issue from their perspective is that of inerrancy of the Bible. God wrote in verse 13 that the "sun stood still and the moon stayed." God either meant what he wrote, or he did not. There is no excuse for God because he is the God of truth; therefore all things he says and does must reflect that fact. So God cannot utter an untruth and we must conclude that the Bible teaches, in Joshua 10:13 and else where, that the universe rotates around the earth once per day, carrying the sun, moon and stars with it, regardless of what introductory astronomy texts may say. We shall see later that the advanced texts belie the introductory texts on the matter of the rotation of the earth. For the time being, the choice is either the Bible or the introductory astronomy texts: which do you believe?


It is not a question of choosing in which to "believe" when it is a well-established principle of physics that the earth revolves around the sun. It is quite simply impossible for the universe to revolve around the earth, and to believe that the entire universe came to a screetching halt then started back up a few hours later with no physical aftereffects is ludicrous. The only way anyone can believe in the inerrancy of the Bible is to close their eyes to the Truth in favor of ancient superstition and comforting lies.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 06:53 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
farmerman wrote:
neo
Quote:
So evolutionary scientists are claiming that "NONE of the existing data refutes." the hypothesis of evolution?

NONE of the existing data /evidence refutes the THEORY of evolution by nat selection. Almost Every piece of evidence refutes Creationism, and hardly ant even comes close to supporting it.

Yes. I would also add that the theory of evolution, as with all scientific theories, is a RESULT of the evidence, so it should surprise nobody that the evidence doesn't refute it (otherwise the theory would have been scrapped or modified to fit the evidence long ago).
So, you are saying the hypothesis has never been changed . . ?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 07:00 pm
Terry wrote:
How DOES the Bible explain the changes in kinds of animals reflected by the fossil record?
Why should it?
Terry wrote:
Exactly how DOES the Bible explain lethal pathogens? Do you think God deliberately created the Ebola virus?
Part of the answer must certainly lie in the answer to how pathogens became pathogens
Terry wrote:
. . . Do you believe in demonic possession, as Jesus did?
One would have to believe in demons first, right? Exactly how might one expect demons to work in a time of 'enlightenment' such as we now enjoy?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 07:09 pm
Quote:
Exactly how might one expect demons to work in a time of 'enlightenment' such as we now enjoy?


By possessing christians.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 07:34 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:
Exactly how might one expect demons to work in a time of 'enlightenment' such as we now enjoy?


By possessing christians.
Pretty cheeky, Cyr. Rolling Eyes

But I'll go along with it.

Perhaps they could cause christians to strap bombs around themselves and blow themselves up in a public market - maybe near a school.
Oh, wait. Some other group has thought of that already. . .

I kind of thought they might be a bit more subtle.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 07:43 pm
neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
farmerman wrote:
neo
Quote:
So evolutionary scientists are claiming that "NONE of the existing data refutes." the hypothesis of evolution?

NONE of the existing data /evidence refutes the THEORY of evolution by nat selection. Almost Every piece of evidence refutes Creationism, and hardly ant even comes close to supporting it.

Yes. I would also add that the theory of evolution, as with all scientific theories, is a RESULT of the evidence, so it should surprise nobody that the evidence doesn't refute it (otherwise the theory would have been scrapped or modified to fit the evidence long ago).
So, you are saying the hypothesis has never been changed . . ?

Which "hypothesis" are you referring to? Be very specific so I can answer your question.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 07:46 pm
neo

Realax, I don't think they'd succeed in possessing you. :wink:
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 07:49 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
farmerman wrote:
neo
Quote:
So evolutionary scientists are claiming that "NONE of the existing data refutes." the hypothesis of evolution?

NONE of the existing data /evidence refutes the THEORY of evolution by nat selection. Almost Every piece of evidence refutes Creationism, and hardly ant even comes close to supporting it.

Yes. I would also add that the theory of evolution, as with all scientific theories, is a RESULT of the evidence, so it should surprise nobody that the evidence doesn't refute it (otherwise the theory would have been scrapped or modified to fit the evidence long ago).
So, you are saying the hypothesis has never been changed . . ?

Which "hypothesis" are you referring to? Be very specific so I can answer your question.
Why, the hypothesis you call a theory. . .
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 07:50 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
neo

Realax, I don't think they'd succeed in possessing you. :wink:
What if they are sneaky?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 07:52 pm
Oh, they are. But keep your guard up and your nightlamp lit, and they don't stand a chance.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 08:17 pm
neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
farmerman wrote:
neo
Quote:
So evolutionary scientists are claiming that "NONE of the existing data refutes." the hypothesis of evolution?

NONE of the existing data /evidence refutes the THEORY of evolution by nat selection. Almost Every piece of evidence refutes Creationism, and hardly ant even comes close to supporting it.

Yes. I would also add that the theory of evolution, as with all scientific theories, is a RESULT of the evidence, so it should surprise nobody that the evidence doesn't refute it (otherwise the theory would have been scrapped or modified to fit the evidence long ago).
So, you are saying the hypothesis has never been changed . . ?

Which "hypothesis" are you referring to? Be very specific so I can answer your question.
Why, the hypothesis you call a theory. . .

And I thought nobody could be as vacuous as spendi.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 08:19 pm
OK, So, you are saying the theory has never been changed . . ?
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 09:49 pm
neologist wrote:
Terry wrote:
How DOES the Bible explain the changes in kinds of animals reflected by the fossil record?
Why should it?
Terry wrote:
Exactly how DOES the Bible explain lethal pathogens? Do you think God deliberately created the Ebola virus?
Part of the answer must certainly lie in the answer to how pathogens became pathogens
Terry wrote:
. . . Do you believe in demonic possession, as Jesus did?
One would have to believe in demons first, right? Exactly how might one expect demons to work in a time of 'enlightenment' such as we now enjoy?

If the Bible were an accurate source of scientific information, then its stories should be consistent with facts and help us understand.

How do YOU think pathogens came about?

If all stories in the Bible are true, then demons possess and can be driven out of people. I know of no proof that demons currently exist, or ever did. Mental illnesses are now known to have physiological causes. Why didn't God simply tell people that instead of making them fear demonic possession?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 12:00 am
neologist wrote:
OK, So, you are saying the theory has never been changed . . ?

The general concept of the theory (Evolution by means of Natural Selection) has never changed. Details within the theory have been changed (or added), but the basic premise of the theory is the same.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 01:22 am
That's true.

The basic premise is 'we may not know HOW evolution occurred, but we just KNOW that it did. therefore all evidence must be interpreted to see HOW (not if) it fits into evolutionary theory'.

So, at one time, it was dogma that critters with similar morphology were descended from a common ancestor.

When that became unworkable, we came up with 'parallel evolution' (convergent evolution)

see http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage14.html

It's a great way to have one's cake and eat it too.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 02:12:06
▲ ▼