The Bible and Science.Part 1 / The Basic Science Principles.

reply to post by Astyanax


Wrong assumptions about what? You mean because you don't agree it makes whatever I say wrong?
Torn apart in my own thread? I love your choice of words. Anything else you want to Assume or Predict?
You see I don't have a problem with you having your own opinions. Can you say the same about me?

reply to post by blackreign2012


No I don't. I will tell you why . I dont understand what a court of law has to do with the topic first of all.
Secondly what I feel would never need be explained in a court of law. Unless they make it a crime to believe in God. Have you ever heard of anyone in court that was there because they had to prove with evidence why they believe in God.?

reply to post by CherubBaby

Wrong assumptions about what?

>sigh<

You assume that when Genesis says 'the heavens and the earth' it means 'matter, energy and spacetime.' What basis have you for that claim?

The universe, in essence, then, must be a continuum of space-time, matter, and energy.

Spacetime is the continuum. Matter and energy are discrete entities within the continuum. But actually, this is a very crude way of looking at reality. Science has advanced well beyond this billiard-table universe you describe.

You're saying everything is made of matter, energy and space, therefore when Genesis says 'God made the heavens and the earth' it means 'God made matter, energy and spacetime,' and because (according to you) it means this, it proves the Bible is scientific.

You are assuming what you are trying to prove. How's that for an assumption?

You mean because you don't agree it makes whatever I say wrong?

No. I mean I don't agree with what you say because it is wrong.

You see I don't have a problem with you having your own opinions. Can you say the same about me?

Why bother, when you just said it about yourself?

reply to post by Astyanax



Have you ever looked at these facts about the Bible Astyanax ?
The Bible was a credible source long before
" cutting edge science ".

Here's an excerpt.

"Paths of the sea" Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He was bed-ridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went looking for these paths. We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents.

reply to post by CherubBaby


"No I don't. I will tell you why . I dont understand what a court of law has to do with the topic first of all.
Secondly what I feel would never need be explained in a court of law. Unless they make it a crime to believe in God. Have you ever heard of anyone in court that was there because they had to prove with evidence why they believe in God.?"

A court of law should be a part of every topic. That's where you go to get real issues resolved.

It may one day be a crime to believe in God. They're are starting to debate the use of the word "God" in our classrooms and other inappropriate areas of life.

No, because a court is based on facts and evidence ... so to be in court to prove why you "believe" in "God", would be a waste of everyone's time and money, therefore it wouldn't be entertained.

So ... I guess your right.

reply to post by Astyanax


Then tell me if you will what does Genisis mean when it says "God created the heavens and the earth" It's like the bug in the bottle. The bug in the bottle doesn't understand the boy who put him there.
Can I prove God exists and created everything? No. Do I believe He did? Yes. Can you prove God didn't create the heavens and earth? No Do you believe He did? It would appear that you don't. So what?

reply to post by randyvs

Nothing new there, just the usual cherrypicked and reinterpreted Bible verses, anachronistic readings and statements of the obvious. As I'm sure you know, Randy, you'll have to do a lot better than that to impress me. Though I must say your uncanny familiarity with the presumed content of CherubBaby's forthcoming posts does give rise to a rather interesting suspicion...

*

reply to post by CherubBaby

Then tell me if you will what does Genisis mean when it says "God created the heavens and the earth"

I suppose it means just what it says. It's modern science, not Genesis at all, that allows you to say 'the heavens and the earth are made of matter and energy in spacetime.' Those concepts are not in the Bible.

Can I prove God exists and created everything? No. Do I believe He did? Yes. Can you prove God didn't create the heavens and earth? No Do you believe He did? It would appear that you don't. So what?

So nothing. I thought the thread topic was 'The Bible and Science', not 'Does God Exist and Did He Create Everything?' What is it you really want to talk about?

Sure. I was there many years ago. I had to know with mind as well. My heart knew the truth but my mind was full of reason. Life happens to us all until we start to see clearly. It's a journey.

Originally posted by blackreign2012
SuperiorEd,

I respect your opinion. I do not agree, but I respect it. I have yet to see anything in my life as spiritual. I unfortunately can only see things for what they are and nothing more.

I come to these threads to read and try to understand but instead only get lost when I see people use the words "feelings" and in "my heart" I know it to be. That puts my trying to understand back at zero again.

This is a physical world based upon facts. Anything else is fantasy until proven otherwise. We as people are too free, free to believe in whatever we want. Free to believe that when we die we have virgins waiting for us in the after life. It is that type of free thinking that is crippling us and holding us back.

edit on 29-12-2011 by blackreign2012 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Astyanax

Nothing new there, just the usual cherrypicked and reinterpreted Bible verses, anachronistic readings and statements of the obvious. As I'm sure you know, Randy, you'll have to do a lot better than that to impress me. Though I must say your uncanny familiarity with the presumed content of CherubBaby's forthcoming posts does give rise to a rather interesting suspicion...

Easy now. Don't get an aneurysm. I'll credit your suspicions and asure you there is no truth to them..

reply to post by Astyanax


What makes you think anyone wants to impress you.? Your nothing more than another human being like everyone else on this planet. Your conclusions are baseless and without merrit. You can prove nothing of your denials and thats all there is to it. Your opinions are no more or less valid than mine or anyone elses so try to remember where you are and what you are. Just another human being and there are many of us.

I liked this thread better when edmc^2 did it a couple of months ago. He at least added pretty pictures to cover up his ridiculous overreaching regarding how the Bible is accurate in a scientific sense.

reply to post by randyvs

Randy, I'm shocked at you... using an atheist website link like that. You should have done some digging around on that site and looked at the pages where they refute the scientific accuracy of the Bible.

I find it laughable that some of the posters talk about the scientific inaccuracies of The Bible but no one shows any of these so called inaccuracies.

reply to post by iterationzero

I liked this thread better when edmc^2 did it a couple of months ago. He at least added pretty pictures to cover up his ridiculous overreaching regarding how the Bible is accurate in a scientific sense.

So iteration0 - can you please point to me what's inaccurate in what I stated in regards to the accuracy of the Bible against known Scientific Facts?

Like I said - scientist had concluded that the universe had a beginning.

And so does the Bible!

Genesis 1:1 states that:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth -- NKJV."

Experts say:

"Evidence of a beginning"

The book “God and the Astronomers,” page 14, said:

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.”

The Hubble Telescope and other powerful instruments, higher mathematics and the brightest minds of science has confirmed this to be so: the universe had a beginning – ergo: The Big Bang.

Professor of astronomy David L. Block wrote:

“That the universe has not always existed—that it had a beginning—has not always been popular.”

Now:

“Virtually all astrophysicists today conclude, that “the universe began with a big bang that propelled matter outward in all directions.” – reported U.S.News & World Report in 1997

“You can call it the big bang, but you can also call it with accuracy the moment of creation.” – Robert Jastrow

Penzias, who shared in the discovery of background radiation in the universe, observed:

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing.”

“What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.” – COBE team leader George Smoot

Here's a pretty picture for you:

--------------------A conceptual illustration of the Big Bang Event:---------------
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0bc26b654706.jpg[/atsimg]

Care to point out what's so "ridiculous overreaching regarding how the Bible is accurate in a scientific sense?"

The Bible also states the "earth is hanging upon nothing" (Job 26:7) but until the advent of modern rocketry we came to discover the "earth" is "indeed hanging upon nothing". The "nothing" we now know as gravity.

Care to point out how did these ancient writers know about these scientific facts when they didn't even have such scientific knowledge like we have today and advance instruments at their disposal like we have today?

So what's so "ridiculous overreaching regarding how the Bible is accurate in a scientific sense?"

What say you?

reply to post by iterationzero

Randy, I'm shocked at you... using an atheist website link like that. You should have done some digging around on that site and looked at the pages where they refute the scientific accuracy of the Bible.

Ya well what the hell? Info a penny info a pound.

reply to post by edmc^2


You seem to like using my "what say you"

Never thought i'd be giving you a star for a post but hey.... thats life eh...

So if you believe in this "big bang" theory...

then what is God?

I thought I would post this for those of you that may need the facts about some very famous scientists.

There's really no real conflict between the Bible and science. You can be a Christian and still be very, very capable as a scientist. For example, you have such Christians as Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Liedmitz, Newton, Pascal, and on and on.

It is true that the Bible doesn't use scientific jargon, but that doesn't make it nonscientific. The Bible talks in everyday language.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You seem to like using my "what say you"

Never thought i'd be giving you a star for a post but hey.... thats life eh...

So if you believe in this "big bang" theory...

then what is God?

Hey thanks,

As for the "big-bang theory" that's what scientist ended up calling it and came to be known. .But to me the more accurate terminology is "moment of creation" or the "birth of the universe". Of course it's not going to be accepted widely in scientific community because it lends to a creator.

As for "what is God"?

Genesis 1:1 states that he is the source the beginning - the Creator! The ultimate source of energy from which the material universe was derive from, that is E=mc^2.

CERN has given an excellent example of how an enormous amount of energy is converted into a sub-particle (matter).

Thus the material universe require dynamic energy to bring it about and continually sustain it.

(Isaiah 40:26) . . .“Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing."

Originally posted by CherubBaby
I find it laughable that some of the posters talk about the scientific inaccuracies of The Bible but no one shows any of these so called inaccuracies.

There are no scientific inaccuracies in the bible because it's not, nor never claimed to be, a scientific textbook - in exactly the same way there are no historical inacuracies in a phone directory...

Why do the people that 'invent' biblical science appear desperate to prove something?

reply to post by CherubBaby
I just wrote down on a napkin "things happened," which encompasses every possible scientific phenomena that have let to the creation of our universe, the sun, the earth, and everything within. Thus obviously this napkin is a historical scientific document and anything written on the napkin should be considered factual.

reply to post by uva3021


Your point is not only a comparrison of apples to oranges but its pitiable that you would embarass yourself with such a statement. If you can write on a napkin what is going to be discovered scientifically 5000 yrs from now then you will be on the track of what is being talked about here. The book of Job is the oldest book of the bible and is talking about a scientific fact that wasn't discovered for over 5000 yrs later than its claim in the scripture. Now if that bothers you and makes you want to rant and record things that have already happened on napkins, then go right ahead, but it doesnt change the facts of scriptures accuracy in this matter ..

In case there is any doubt , The scripture was explaining science that wasnt even known or discovered for centuries in the future to come. is that possible? Yes. Its easy if your the God who did the creating and inspired the written word. But if your scratching you head in disbelief , your probably looking for more napkins. right about now