Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

One Book


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
38 replies to this topic

#1
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts
If we used the Bible as our sole science (and history) book, where would be as a species?  (FYI, there are no wrong answers).

Edited by OneLight, 22 January 2014 - 04:02 PM.


#2
OneLight

OneLight

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,675 posts

God gives us what He wants to know about His relationship with His creation through His word.  Nowhere in the bible will you find it claiming to have all the answers to every question.  The problem arises when other writings try to disprove His word.

 

Where would we be if all we had was His word to go by?  A whole lot closer to Him.



#3
OneLight

OneLight

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,675 posts

From the ToS:

 

If you have a problem with any of the Moderators or Chat admin, please keep it private. The moderation team serves this ministry on a voluntary basis. They are human beings and make mistakes. If you disagree with one of their decisions, make use of the PM system or email or the Repost Post button to get satisfaction. (Matt. 18:15)



#4
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,622 posts

If we used the Bible as our sole science (and history) book, where would be as a species?  (FYI, there are no wrong answers).

What makes you think that science didn't start with the Bible and grow from there......   it like most things mankind has taken up it gets perverted over time.   With the exception of Darwin's idea of the origin of the species, most of the science I've studied doesn't violate what I personally find in the Bible.  I personally don't go along with the dating process in science for it assumes things that we really don't know are true.   It seems so from todays viewpoint, but science has changed pretty much regularly during my lifetime as we discover things we thought were some way in the past really aren't.  



#5
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

From the ToS:

 

If you have a problem with any of the Moderators or Chat admin, please keep it private. The moderation team serves this ministry on a voluntary basis. They are human beings and make mistakes. If you disagree with one of their decisions, make use of the PM system or email or the Repost Post button to get satisfaction. (Matt. 18:15)

Thank You.  I appreciate the guidance and the work volunteer admins do on boards.  I cannot seem to find a Personal Message button anywhere?

 

Jerry


Edited by jerryR34, 23 January 2014 - 02:13 PM.


#6
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

 

If we used the Bible as our sole science (and history) book, where would be as a species?  (FYI, there are no wrong answers).

What makes you think that science didn't start with the Bible and grow from there......  

 

Because science is about observing the natural world and letting the observation lead you to a conclusion.  Observing nature does not lead you to the bible.  Looking at a road cut of sedimentary rock that is in line with the normal geologic fossil column leads you to evolution, and refutes a global flood as portrayed in the bible. 



#7
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

 

If we used the Bible as our sole science (and history) book, where would be as a species?  (FYI, there are no wrong answers).

...   It seems so from todays viewpoint, but science has changed pretty much regularly during my lifetime as we discover things we thought were some way in the past really aren't.  

 

That is one of the greatest aspects/assets/traits of science.  It changes as new information is attained - quite the opposite of faith.



#8
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,104 posts
That is one of the greatest aspects/assets/traits of science.  It changes as new information is attained - quite the opposite of faith.

 

:thumbsup:

 

~

 

Beloved, The Big Winds Of Vanity Are Blowing Folks Here And There

 

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

 

But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: Ephesians 4:12-15

 

The year was 1927, and physicists were puzzled. At question was the very nature of the extremely small. Were electrons, light, and similar entities waves or particles? In some experiments, the tiny entities behaved like waves, while in others they behaved like particles. That's just not possible in our macroscopic world. Sound waves don't behave like pebbles — and thankfully so, or your ears would be stinging right now.

The 1927 conference on quantum mechanics was held to discuss how the many seemingly contradictory observations could be reconciled. Schrödinger and de Broglie showed up with their ideas. But the eight-hundred pound gorilla was Bohr. In what later came to be called the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohr proposed that wave equations described where entities like electrons could be, but, the entities didn't actually exist as particles until someone went looking for them. The act of observation caused existence. In Bohr's own words, the entities in question had no "independent reality in the ordinary physical sense."

Einstein wouldn't have any of it. An electron was an electron, and just because someone wasn't looking at it, it was still there — wherever "there" happened to be. Late in the conference, Einstein rose to challenge Bohr's views. But that was only the beginning. Until Einstein's death some three decades later, Bohr and Einstein entered into spirited debates — in print and face to face. The debates were gentlemanly. Bohr and Einstein were friends and had great respect for one another. But they were also stubborn. "It is wrong to think the task of physics is to find out how nature is," said Bohr. Einstein disagreed. "What we call science," he said, "has the sole purpose of determining what is."

Through all its strangeness, Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation remains one of the most widely accepted worldviews of quantum mechanics. Other common interpretations are seemingly even more bizarre. But they all point to one, simple fact. Our universe, as any physicist will tell you, is a mysterious place. It teases us with unimaginable facts then leaves us to make sense of them. Perhaps someday, we will. But until then, we'll just have to savor the great mysteries that surround us.

I'm Andy Boyd at the University of Houston, where we're interested in the way inventive minds work. 
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2627.htm

 

Whereas The Rock Of Our Faith

 

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Hebrews 13:8

 

Stands

 

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

 

Firm

 

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
 

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. Matthew 7:24-27



#9
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

 

 

If we used the Bible as our sole science (and history) book, where would be as a species?  (FYI, there are no wrong answers).

What makes you think that science didn't start with the Bible and grow from there......  

 

 

Because science is about observing the natural world and letting the observation lead you to a conclusion.  Observing nature does not lead you to the bible.  Looking at a road cut of sedimentary rock that is in line with the normal geologic fossil column leads you to evolution, and refutes a global flood as portrayed in the bible. 

 

 

"normal geologic fossil column leads you to evolution, and refutes a global flood as portrayed in the bible."

 

Is that a fact? :mgdetective:    You've got a BIG PROBLEM:  Polystrate Fossils....

 

Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea:

 

'If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100,000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.
Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10 000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous'.
Ager, D.V., The New Catastrophism, Cambridge University Press, p. 49, 1993.

 

The BEST argument I've come across is "Polystrate Fossils" is not a "Scientific Term".

 

Take a Gander @ these.... The link won't post.  Type "Polystrate Fossils" into any search engine.  Please explain how these Fossilized Trees Penetrate (alleged) Millions of years of Strata?

 

A Big Flood......Maybe?



#10
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,622 posts

I took this picture of the Grand Canyon several years ago.   The Ranger that was giving a talk at this site said something very interesting.  After giving us the story about millions of years as she was instructed to do she then smiled and said something to the effect of, "Now for the rest of the story."

 

to paraphrase a five minute talk that I could never remember the details she pointed out that if you look closely the Grand Canyon was created in two steps

  The large wide part of the canyon was created in an extremely short period of time as it had to drain all the water from the entire water shed of the Colorado River.    People who she had access to were saying that the smaller canyon that is eaten into the soft rock and dirt at the bottom of the canyon should have taken no more than 4 to 5 thousand years to form.

Kind of fits into the scheme of things I read in Genesis.

 

 

 

293grandcanyonedited.jpg



#11
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

 

 

If we used the Bible as our sole science (and history) book, where would be as a species?  (FYI, there are no wrong answers).

What makes you think that science didn't start with the Bible and grow from there......  

 

 

Because science is about observing the natural world and letting the observation lead you to a conclusion.  Observing nature does not lead you to the bible.  Looking at a road cut of sedimentary rock that is in line with the normal geologic fossil column leads you to evolution, and refutes a global flood as portrayed in the bible. 

 

 

Moreover:

 

Are you saying Evolution is true via observing a road cut of sedimentary rock that is in line with the normal geologic fossil column?

 

Can you please Define evolution?...specifically if you don't mind.

 

Thanks



#12
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,622 posts

278grandcanyonedited.jpg



#13
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

I took this picture of the Grand Canyon several years ago.   The Ranger that was giving a talk at this site said something very interesting.  After giving us the story about millions of years as she was instructed to do she then smiled and said something to the effect of, "Now for the rest of the story."

 

to paraphrase a five minute talk that I could never remember the details she pointed out that if you look closely the Grand Canyon was created in two steps

  The large wide part of the canyon was created in an extremely short period of time as it had to drain all the water from the entire water shed of the Colorado River.    People who she had access to were saying that the smaller canyon that is eaten into the soft rock and dirt at the bottom of the canyon should have taken no more than 4 to 5 thousand years to form.

Kind of fits into the scheme of things I read in Genesis.

 

 

Breath-taking picture!!  I visited some years ago...just awesome.  Interesting what the Park Ranger said.  Another thing that's very interesting is that for the Colorado River to carve the Canyon it would of had to flow uphill for like 1000 meters or something like that.

 

Thanks for the Pic!!



#14
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Can anyone provide evidence of God instead of attacking accepted science?  My roadcut example required no preconceived notions, but built upon observation.  Can someone explain how the bible explains my example?



#15
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,622 posts

Can anyone provide evidence of God instead of attacking accepted science?  My roadcut example required no preconceived notions, but built upon observation.  Can someone explain how the bible explains my example?

Let me just say this in short form.......   I have friends who were associated with the Smithsonian Institute and they have told me for years that if anything is found that would go against the theory of evolution, it simply disappears......   He/she has seen things that were taken there and destroyed......     so I personally can't trust scientists to tell me the truth.

 

I have done interviews with people who disagree with evolution and they can't even get their writings published.....  worse their careers are usually destroyed.

 

God has never lied to me and he has kept me from certain death on more than one occasion  however I personally can't trust scientists to tell me the truth.



#16
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Can anyone provide evidence of God instead of attacking accepted science?  My roadcut example required no preconceived notions, but built upon observation.  Can someone explain how the bible explains my example?

 

ahhh yes, the old switcheroo.  OK

 

".......accepted science?  My roadcut example required no preconceived notions, but built upon observation."

 

"Science is Built upon the "Scientific Method" (7 Steps), in short it has to be:

 

Observable

Testable/Measurable

Repeatable

Falsifiable

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

 

 

In your above example, you can't even get to STEP 1.  You just Observed.....you didn't directly Observe a Phenomenon. Therefore...what are you gonna TEST??

 

 

"Can anyone provide evidence of God"

 

1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT "Pillar of Science"): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT "Pillar of Science"): The amount of energy available for work is running out,  and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.

You have only three options:

1. The Universe has always existed (in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics);
2. The Universe created itself (in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or

3. The Universe was Created by GOD.

 

 

Furthermore;

 

So with (No GOD and just evolution) you believe in strict Materialism or "Naturalistic Processes" for How we are here, Correct? But Information (Thoughts, Knowledge, Truth) are Supernatural by definition.

 

Information is immaterial and does not emanate from matter---atoms/molecules, ink, chalk, ect contain ZERO Information intrinsically:

 

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink" -Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate)

 

I would go further and ask the fine Dr....What Message?  Follow?

 

So I ask you, How do you know that everything you posted on this Thread is TRUTH?

 

By proxy of your beliefs/World View, Thoughts/then Truth are nothing more than the result of Chemical Reactions.  How do you get Truth from that??

 

Shake up a can of Pepsi and a can of Sprite then open them up.....which one is True/False??

What you're offering us here, based on your World View, is basically Brain Fizz.  How do you know it's TRUTH based on your World View??  Do you expect me to believe it?

 

Information>>>> Knowledge>>>>>> Truth are Supernatural by definition and the Author is Supernatural.....My GOD and Savior Jesus Christ.  If you wish, you can adopt the World View in which you are standing ....it's absolutely FREE, PAID IN FULL!!

 

He Loves you more than you can Fathom!!!  For the very hairs on your head are all numbered! 

 

Humble yourself before him and he will lift you up.

 

Hope you find the Truth



#17
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts

If we used the Bible as our sole science (and history) book, where would be as a species?  (FYI, there are no wrong answers).

 

An odd question. The Bible was never meant to be a science book.

 

I mean, it talks about people planting crops, but provides only scant information is given on how they planted the crops. That is because the writing is not about how to plant crops but using what people know about planting crops to teach a lesson.

 

In any event though, you should not let your perceptions on how Christians handle how the earth and how humans came to be keep you away from encountering Jesus.



#18
Tristen

Tristen

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts

I don’t think any informed person seriously suggests that the Bible become our sole source of scientific knowledge.

 

Prior to the late 1700s, most scientific research was conducted within the Biblical-theistic faith framework. Around that time, some scientists (i.e. James Hutton and contemporaries) proposed and alternate faith framework – now called naturalism (the concept that only natural explanations can qualify as truth). Since then, naturalism has become the default faith perspective from which most scientific endeavours are conducted.

 

As a Christian (and creationists), I merely propose that the Biblical account of reality continues to provide a logically valid framework from within which legitimate science can be conducted.

 

 

Opinions and speculations regarding where we would be as a species depend largely upon which faith perspective we choose to prefer.



#19
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,104 posts

I don’t think any informed person seriously suggests that the Bible become our sole source of scientific knowledge.

 

Prior to the late 1700s, most scientific research was conducted within the Biblical-theistic faith framework. Around that time, some scientists (i.e. James Hutton and contemporaries) proposed and alternate faith framework – now called naturalism (the concept that only natural explanations can qualify as truth). Since then, naturalism has become the default faith perspective from which most scientific endeavors are conducted.

 

As a Christian (and creationist), I merely propose that the Biblical account of reality continues to provide a logically valid framework from within which legitimate science can be conducted.

 

Opinions and speculations regarding where we would be as a species depend largely upon which faith perspective we choose to prefer.

 

:thumbsup:

 

Scientism

 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:20-22

 

Is The Mind Killer

 

The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all. A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. Proverbs 22:2-3



#20
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,104 posts

If we used the Bible as our sole science (and history) book, where would be as a species?  (FYI, there are no wrong answers).

 

What makes you think that science didn't start with the Bible and grow from there......  

 

Because science is about observing the natural world and letting the observation lead you to a conclusion.  Observing nature does not lead you to the bible.  Looking at a road cut of sedimentary rock that is in line with the normal geologic fossil column leads you to evolution, and refutes a global flood as portrayed in the bible. 

 

"normal geologic fossil column leads you to evolution, and refutes a global flood as portrayed in the bible."

 

Is that a fact? :mgdetective:    You've got a BIG PROBLEM:  Polystrate Fossils....

 

Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea:

 

'If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100,000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.
 

Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10 000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous'.
Ager, D.V., The New Catastrophism, Cambridge University Press, p. 49, 1993.

 

The BEST argument I've come across is "Polystrate Fossils" is not a "Scientific Term".

 

Take a Gander @ these.... The link won't post.  Type "Polystrate Fossils" into any search engine.  Please explain how these Fossilized Trees Penetrate (alleged) Millions of years of Strata?

 

A Big Flood......Maybe?

 

:thumbsup:

 

http://www.icr.org/article/4950/

 

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

http://www.icr.org/article/445/






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network