Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jerryR34

One Book

39 posts in this topic

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
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0