Bible vs. Science

Well there's a problem then, because according to the Bible the vegetation on earth was created a day before the sun and the moon. If these days are symbolic of much more time the plants would have all died.

This is known in statistics as the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. So, for example, those who wish to believe in premonitory dreams will cite anecdotal evidence of people who had dreams that something would happen, which then subsequently occurred. As in your remark, they are leaving out the bits which are extraneous to the template, but more than that, they are leaving out all contradictory evidence--in scientific terms, they will not acknowledge falsification. So, they will ignore every instance of someone who dreams that something bad will happen, but which does not subsequently occur. When people have premonitory dreams which are "fulfilled," they immediately contact at least their friends, and perhaps some "parapsychology" department at a university somewhere--such as the Rhine Center which used to be funded at North Carolina State (i think, it might have been at Duke). But when they have such a dream, and it is not subsequently "fulfilled," they immediately do not tell all their friends about, they immediately do not contact a parapsychologist to report.

When the Rhine Center was in operation, they typically recieved about 100 to 150 reports of premonitory dreams each year. However, one can apply "the Santa Claus" principle to see just how statistically significant such a claim might be. The "Santa Clause" principle states that it is not necessary to argue reindeer propulsion systems, nor elven sweat shops at the North Pole, but simply to do the math. Even if Santa Clause spent only one second at each house, and was able to travel instantaneously from one house to another, he couldn't deliver the goods to even a significant fraction of North America from sundown on December 24 to sunrise on December 25, never mind Europe. Apply the same mathematical rigor to claims of premonitory dreams, and the 100 to 150 reported to the Rhine Center each year in which it was in operation, and you see what a pathetic claim it is. Even if each person in North America had only one dream per night (and sleep research suggests that everyone has several, even though they may not remember them), with more than 300,000,000 people in North America, over 365 nights, that's almost one billion, one hundred millions dreams per annum. On that scale, 150 "vindicated" premonitory dreams is risible, and doesn't even approach the statistical likelihood of mere coincidence.

The religiously perfervid are past masters of applying the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. So, for example, the religiously devout might claim that prayer is efficacious in bringing about unlooked-for cures. Yet if one considers that there are more than a billion Chrisitans on the planet, and that they pray at least once a week, any figure under two billion miraculous cures attributable to prayer each year falls below the threshold of statistical coincidence. And, of course, there's the problem of the religiously devout being unlikely to make a big noise when "I prayed, and prayed, and prayed, and guess what ? ! ? ! ? Nothing happened."

Oh, I don't know -- I was praying you would write that.

Gee Whiz, Mr. Wizard . . . there's your proof ! ! !

the creation/evolution debate is portrayed over and over again as “science vs. faith” (or “religion vs. science”). Secular reporters and evolutionists (and even evolutionist clergy) have emphasized that creation has no place in science classes, because religion has nothing to do with science.

I believe much of the church has been responsible (sometimes unwittingly) for fostering this view within the church and general public. Sadly, the majority of church leaders in America have compromised with millions of years and evolutionary ideas in geology, astronomy and biology, and thus have allowed generations of churchgoers to accept such beliefs and reject the literal history of Genesis 1"11.

Not only this, but even many theologically conservative churches have avoided dealing with the millions of years/evolutionary ideas (even though they, by and large, have accepted a literal Genesis and a six-day creation). Instead, they have mainly taught the gospel, Christian doctrine, relationships, Christian morality, etc. Now, this is all great, of course, but too many churches have been ignoring an attack on the foundational book of the Bible, Genesis, upon which our Christian doctrine is based.

Even though the Genesis accounts of Adam and Eve and Noah’s Flood have been taught in Sunday school lessons and other places, churches have not dealt with areas like geology, biology, anthropology and so on. For instance, though the pastors and their congregations basically believe Genesis to be true, the Genesis accounts are presented as just “stories” that are not related at all to fossils, the age of the earth, dinosaurs, etc. As a result, if you asked the average churchgoer (or even Christian leader) today, “Is geology, biology, astronomy, anthropology and so on taught in your church?” the answer is usually, “no.” If you then ask, “Where do we go, then, to learn about geology, biology, astronomy and anthropology?” the answer is typically “to school.”

The account of origins in Genesis has been relegated to “religion,” but what has been taught at school concerning origins has been labeled as “science.” What has happened is that the church has handed over the teaching of geology, biology, astronomy, anthropology, etc., to the secular public school systems. Now, keep in mind that the majority of students from church homes go to public schools, where by and large they are taught that “science” has “proved” a history of the world that is millions of years old and full of evolutionary progress.

Because church leaders don’t know how to deal with millions of years and evolutionary issues (or compromise with them), they teach topics that mostly relate just to spiritual things. No wonder the world (and sadly many Christians) think the creation/evolution battle is the “Bible (or religion) vs. science.”

The Bible gives the foundation for the right approach in geology, astronomy, biology, anthropology"in fact, for all areas of reality. The church needs to take this all back (“to rebuild foundations,” as our 2005 theme declares) and teach people the true foundation of science based on the Bible. And if this is done, perhaps the public will begin to see that the battle is not “the Bible vs. science,” but actually the “Bible vs. secular beliefs.”

The reason I believe the bible is because it has proven its self over over again through science and fulfilled prophecies. Here are some sites you can check out if you need examples:
http://www.100prophecies.org/
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible
http://www.understandthetimes.org/101scientific.shtml
http://www.understandthetimes.org/101prophecy.shtml

I understand stupid quite well.

Hmm . ..
Lets see. . .
Light was visible on the first day. From where? Were the sun and moon there, but somehow not visible because of the "expanse"? You tell me.

But there was light.

C'mon guys; you know I'm talking from the bible's perspective.

If you add up the years, the mid 1970's marked 6000 years since the creation of Adam, which took place somewhere in the 6th day.

Some may refer to that as a protracted period of time - others not.

But we do understand stupid, eh?

Hi Set.
Good to have you here. I appreciate the perspective you and Farmer bring to the discussion.

That is why I have always averred that one must take care before making the "leap of faith".

Ive been a geologist for almost 32 years and I know of NO BIBLICAL "TRUTHS" that have assisted us in the finding of fuels, metals, water, industrial rocks, and interpretation of earthquakes and other"geohazards". There are approximately half a million practicing geo scientists worldwide and NONE of these have used BIBLICAl revelations in their practices (unless of course, their oracices are involved in preaching Creationsm). When a belief system like Intelligent design (or its country cousin Creationism) counters all real science, its gotta be perfectly embarrasing every time these "Bible Scientists" can t produce any proofs or predictions based upon their beliefs .

My question throughout, and Ill ask you, is, name one advance that Creation Science has produced in our world since the theory of evolution has been so wonderfully supported by other sciences.
Ive asked you , where are the fossils of mammoths and dinosaurs in the same strata. Where are the footprints of men and dinosaurs in the same strata.

Answerman,

You wrote,


But according to your reference list you also believe that "non-believers go to hell" , don't you ?

They could always **** off fresco.

You are serious I believe. The only reason that religion cannot teach scinces is that religion is unequipped, unarmed, and totally ignorant of the rules , laws, and theories of science.

Most of te natural scinces were the outgrowth of studies by CLERGYMEN like AQthanasius Kircher,Gaston du Lac, Peter scheuchzer, and Adam Sedgwick. They found that , as evidence didnt support a Biblical interpretation forthe earth, something else must be in play.

You should spend some time with the history of natural sciences and how,religious teaching was displaced through time as a result of continued discovery, not some cabal of the heathens. Many of the discoverers were actually well churched, devout people. Even the person who first proposed the BIG BANG was a Catholic Clergyman.
AS one who claims "open mindedness" I find that you are ignorantly monastic in your understandings of how the natural world acts.

There are big buck donations that accrue from your worldview of ignorance. Your mission to displace science in schools is well understood, and , as acard carrying member of NCSE, I can guarantee you that it aint gonna happen . Youd better go back and do lots more study before you call yourself an answer man.

Yeah, and they are voluntarily donated. Science bribes legislators or weaves the flatteries around them to rip the linings out of taxpayers pockets.

So now I am to believe that the BIBLE is an accurate census?. Ill bet that there were tons of "begats" goin on between Moses and now cause we have quite a few DNA, Flouride residue, Carbon 14, and alpha track dates that count up to roughly 30000 years back. Could it be that the "begat track" in the Bible is purely metaphor?

Answerman can't even think for himself. He's a cut and paste kind of guy:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0305lead.asp

I was sure I have read most of his formal answers on other boards that debate religion and I was right. Fanatics seem incapable of original thought.

It's a bit of fun effemm. Wordplay fun.

Still--you lot don't do fun. You talk about it like you talk about critical analysis and having an open mind but you don't do any of them.

No, it's very clear that God made the "two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night" on the fourth day and the plants and trees on the third day.



Somewhere, but it's unclear if it's on earth, where the plants are waiting an symbolic day/eon and what kind of darkness they had to endure.



But if you really think the story of creation works under the symbolic day theory and want to quibble about the light there's still a problem in that the animals were made two symbolic day/eons later. Some of the "fruit" on the 3rd day/eon would need bees from the 5th day/eon.

The reason this whole symbolic day argument started was because science now has cast reasonable doubt on the time frame. So the argument was created that God created the world through the process of evolution. Some try to stick closer to the narrative with the day/eon explanation. Thing is, it just doesn't work. There'd have to have been different sources of light for earth, and these kinds of holes just put the story back into the realm of magic, now no longer standing on the nature we can prove and observe.

Honestly, I think it's a poor position that tries to split the difference between literal interpretation and the "creation through evolution" position and takes on the worst of both.

Bullshit. If you treat the words with such ambiguity that days are interchangeable with eons, then the words have no meaning.

The argument that Days don't mean Days is just a rationalization, and a desperate one at that, because by undermining the meaning of the words, you undermine the inherent veracity of the whole story. You can't have it both ways, either the words mean what they say, or the whole story is meaningless.