It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yet I am living proof that you are wrong. I am religious in that I read religious books nightly. I believe in one god who created all things and sent his son to die for our sins. I believe in the Genesis account of creation because from a scientific standpoint it isn't wrong. I am also a holder of multiple degrees and advanced degrees in atmospheric science.
If the Bible is true, why doesn’t it mention dinosaurs? I've been asked that question hundreds of times in places as far-flung as Jerusalem, Los Angeles, Adelaide, and Capetown. It seems to be the universal (or more modestly, the global) biblical perplexity.
Dinosaurs, of course, are a foil for a more basic question: Has science replaced the Bible as the ultimate source of truth? Nietzsche claimed the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin had laid God and the Bible definitively to rest. In the spring of 1966, Time magazine wondered if he might have been correct, asking on its cover,"Is God Dead?" Nietzsche’s argument is hardly new. Voltaire thought it humorous that this putative God of the Bible would be interested in the affairs of life within the thin film of biosphere that coats the Earth. Voltaire misperceived the biblical concept of an infinite Creator, not to mention the signidcance of our biosphere. Compared to infinity, are the 1027 that make up our Earth significantly smaller than the 1056 grams of the entire universe? But for him, Copernicus was enough. We aren't the center of the universe, so the Bible must be misconceived.
Misconceptions are what the great debate is all about. Today universities have science classes galore on all phases of the mechanics of the universe, from black holes to bacteria. Unfortunately, scientific investigation stops at an account of how the universe functions. It cannot go further. The attempt to discern if a purpose to existence underlies the how is left as a private exercise, one that is usually neglected. And so the quest that underlies the question of dinosaurs remains. It is a topic guaranteed to draw a full house.
No it says light shown forth from the stars on the 4th day.
It took 3 days of re-creating before the Earth's destroyed atmosphere cleared away the dust particles preventing the star light from reaching the surface to see.
The sun and stars were already there, they just couldn't be seen "for signs of times and seasons" prior to day 4 of re-creation week due to the state of the planet prior to it's re-creation.
Have you seen the images of the known universe?
It's almost creepy how it looks like a map of neurons in our own brain.
By the way you may enjoy some books Titled Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch I found the books fascinating even if they are not true they have some very wise inspiring messages which has certainly shaped my thought process. Of course there is much that goes against established religion in them (the dogma).
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
Yeah and I won't give to much weight to a statement made by a guy who makes the choice to put on eyeliner.
I see his point but is is not necessarily true, science from my observation can be just as dogmatic.
Taking words from the bible and take them literally is just wrong. Utterly wrong.
So, the one's that translated the texts use their cosmological and ontological views to translate these descriptions
I for one have studied hebrew
Separating faith from science is obnoxious
Faith is simply trusting in something you suspect is true but can't prove it.