[_ Old Earth _] Christianity's Compatibly with Science.

[abrown9]

what does biblical innerency have to do with science?

Hi Jason,

I was just trying an alternate route of logic. My position was to demonstrate that there are contradictions within the scripture, lending evidence to human involvement in their writing. Even the Gospels (as evidenced by the different recordings of the inscription on the cross) had minor contradictions. These contradictions, to me, indicate that even if God influenced the writing of the scriptures, his influence must have been filtered through the human writers of the time. Therefore, their recordings must have been limited by the scientific knowledge of the time.

In terms of the whale point, I was presenting two possibilities as to why the whale was mislabelled as a fish. One, the writers were human and did not know any better. Common opinion of the time placed whales with fish and that is what was written. In this scenario, the science in the bible is limited to what contempories knew (and to what they didn't know and merely speculated about). The second possibility, and a very likely one, is that it is a small bit of poetic writing. This shows that not every bit of the bible can be taken completely literally. If this scenario is true, it casts doubt on a literal 6 day creation etc.

On a semi-unrelated note, the whale point reminded me of a Seinfeld episode where George claims to be a marine biologist. He is in the coffeeshop talking to Jerry after somehow stumbling upon the solution to a beached whale that had its blowhole obstructed.

George: I got about fifty-feet out and then suddenly the great beast
appeared before me. I tell ya he was ten stories high if he was a
foot. As if sensing my presence he gave out a big bellow. I said,
"Easy big fella!" And then as I watched him struggling I realized
something was obstructing his breathing. From where I was standing
I could see directly into the eye of the great fish!

Jerry: Mammal.

George: Whatever.

I would hope George was being poetic, but I wouldn't bet on it .

 

[Alabaster]

Come on...

 

[Oats]

Come on...

stay on topic
-----
On topic:
I think that some parts of it are, some aren't

simply put

but you also have to realize that God can produce miracles

 

[abrown9]

stay on topic
-----
On topic:
I think that some parts of it are, some aren't

simply put

but you also have to realize that God can produce miracles

Alabaster, maybe I'm just plain dumb, but the sock eating a fish passed right over me.

Oats, thats fine for you to believe that God can produce miracles, but in a forum discussing Christianity and science (and a thread specifically arguing the compatibility of modern science with scripture), there needs to be some scientific discussion. I'm perfectly fine accepting a person's belief whether they wish to believe in God or even believe everything in the bible is literal, but if that same person wants to discuss the compatibility of a literal biblical interpretation with science (as Alabaster seems to be doing), they need to bring both biblical and scientific evidence to the table.

 

[Oats]

Alabaster, maybe I'm just plain dumb, but the sock eating a fish passed right over me.

Oats, thats fine for you to believe that God can produce miracles, but in a forum discussing Christianity and science (and a thread specifically arguing the compatibility of modern science with scripture), there needs to be some scientific discussion. I'm perfectly fine accepting a person's belief whether they wish to believe in God or even believe everything in the bible is literal, but if that same person wants to discuss the compatibility of a literal biblical interpretation with science (as Alabaster seems to be doing), they need to bring both biblical and scientific evidence to the table.

as i said, i don't think it is compatible with our current interpretation of science

but it is true nonetheless

 

[abrown9]

as i said, i don't think it is compatible with our current interpretation of science

but it is true nonetheless

And I can rest easy with that. You have your opinion and I have mine. Faith is one thing you cannot argue.

 

[jasoncran]

Hi Jason,

I was just trying an alternate route of logic. My position was to demonstrate that there are contradictions within the scripture, lending evidence to human involvement in their writing. Even the Gospels (as evidenced by the different recordings of the inscription on the cross) had minor contradictions. These contradictions, to me, indicate that even if God influenced the writing of the scriptures, his influence must have been filtered through the human writers of the time. Therefore, their recordings must have been limited by the scientific knowledge of the time.

In terms of the whale point, I was presenting two possibilities as to why the whale was mislabelled as a fish. One, the writers were human and did not know any better. Common opinion of the time placed whales with fish and that is what was written. In this scenario, the science in the bible is limited to what contempories knew (and to what they didn't know and merely speculated about). The second possibility, and a very likely one, is that it is a small bit of poetic writing. This shows that not every bit of the bible can be taken completely literally. If this scenario is true, it casts doubt on a literal 6 day creation etc.

On a semi-unrelated note, the whale point reminded me of a Seinfeld episode where George claims to be a marine biologist. He is in the coffeeshop talking to Jerry after somehow stumbling upon the solution to a beached whale that had its blowhole obstructed.

George: I got about fifty-feet out and then suddenly the great beast
appeared before me. I tell ya he was ten stories high if he was a
foot. As if sensing my presence he gave out a big bellow. I said,
"Easy big fella!" And then as I watched him struggling I realized
something was obstructing his breathing. From where I was standing
I could see directly into the eye of the great fish!

Jerry: Mammal.

George: Whatever.

I would hope George was being poetic, but I wouldn't bet on it .

i cant make you believe that the hebrews use the acrostic to tell what is to be interpreted as poetry and what isnt

besides, ashua has made a point.

what is often passed as facts in science really isnt.

sparrowhawke has posted that the speed light may not have been constant and that to say it was always what it is today cant be proven. its a presumption.

 

[Deavonreye]

A FACT, doesn't necessarily mean that it must also be "absolute".

It is a great point to state that "a great fish" is not the same thing as a Whale. It shows the lack of understanding in biology to make this error. It is error at worst, and just sloppy at best.

And no, . . . "miracles" cannot be used in a forum that is discussing science.

I have yet to see any credible evidence of the bible being compatible with science.

 

[Sparkey]

A FACT, doesn't necessarily mean that it must also be "absolute".

It is a great point to state that "a great fish" is not the same thing as a Whale. It shows the lack of understanding in biology to make this error. It is error at worst, and just sloppy at best.

And no, . . . "miracles" cannot be used in a forum that is discussing science.

I have yet to see any credible evidence of the bible being compatible with science.

The FACT: this forum is "Christianity and Science". There is no prohibition restricting members from discussing the truth but it may well take a miracle for us to learn to play well in the sandbox.

The OP asked about the "Science of today" and the Bible (So do you guys/gals think Christianity In this case as SOLEY defined by the Christian Bible in it's full, every book is compatible with Science by todays standards and knowledge?) The question has the appearance of being carefully constructed but wasn't. It was addressed to "the man on the street", where the "street" was the Christian Forums Net membership.

Truth is, there is no answer to the question here. Opinions are welcome, of course. Disagreements are to be expected. As we continue to discuss the issue(s) it will be good to avoid, if possible, arguments solely based on semantics, yes?

~Sparrow

"I'M BLIND! I'M BLIND! I CAN'T SEE!!!
Wait, nevermind I had my eyes closed."

 

[Deavonreye]

Actually, the "facts not being equal to an absolute" was in reference to the speed of light. "Constant" won't mean that it can never change. Just within relativity, it is constant.

 

[abrown9]

what is often passed as facts in science really isnt.

sparrowhawke has posted that the speed light may not have been constant and that to say it was always what it is today cant be proven. its a presumption.

It is true that science is constantly correcting itself. However, one thing science can do is prove things wrong.

In another example after the whale which was a fish, here are some instructions straight from the LORD:

Deuteronomy

14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
.......
14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

So apparently a bat is a bird. This has been proven to be false. This leaves us two options. A) those were not the direct words of God and rather were filtered through humans that only had the knowledge of their contempories, or B) God didn't bother them with details that would have made no sense at the time. If this is the case, why shouldn't it apply to other less trivial areas of the scriptures.

I'm using very simple, straightforward cases to try to prove a point about larger more debatable ones.

 

[lordkalvan]

The FACT: this forum is "Christianity and Science". There is no prohibition restricting members from discussing the truth but it may well take a miracle for us to learn to play well in the sandbox.

The OP asked about the "Science of today" and the Bible (So do you guys/gals think Christianity In this case as SOLEY defined by the Christian Bible in it's full, every book is compatible with Science by todays standards and knowledge?) The question has the appearance of being carefully constructed but wasn't. It was addressed to "the man on the street", where the "street" was the Christian Forums Net membership.

Truth is, there is no answer to the question here. Opinions are welcome, of course. Disagreements are to be expected. As we continue to discuss the issue(s) it will be good to avoid, if possible, arguments solely based on semantics, yes?

~Sparrow

"I'M BLIND! I'M BLIND! I CAN'T SEE!!!
Wait, nevermind I had my eyes closed."

You make some good points, but insofar as the OP refers to the compatibility of science and christianity, I guess semantics has to play a significant part in determining what our individual opinions might be: what exactly do we mean by compatible and which understanding of Christianity are we referring to? Biblical literalists have to ensure that science conforms with the Bible as they understand it; non-literalist Christians undoubtedly take a more pragmatic view of the limitations of the writers of the Bible. Others who see no greater merit in the Bible than any other religion's sacred text will simply see scientific error, historical inaccuracies, folklore, legend and myth as an inevitable product of the culture(s) in which they originated.

 

[jasoncran]

It is true that science is constantly correcting itself. However, one thing science can do is prove things wrong.

In another example after the whale which was a fish, here are some instructions straight from the LORD:

Deuteronomy

14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
.......
14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

So apparently a bat is a bird. This has been proven to be false. This leaves us two options. A) those were not the direct words of God and rather were filtered through humans that only had the knowledge of their contempories, or B) God didn't bother them with details that would have made no sense at the time. If this is the case, why shouldn't it apply to other less trivial areas of the scriptures.

I'm using very simple, straightforward cases to try to prove a point about larger more debatable ones.

look at the hebrew and what they called words or bats and then comment.

ie in hebraic culture they call all mustard seeds small seeds not mustard seeds like we do.

of course that doenst mean that they the lord didnt dictate this or tell them.

would you tell a child what the atomic theory is at age one?

he wouldnt understand.

i have looked for the ot hebrew world at age one. i honestly admit that these men were scientists
but that doesnt mean what you say is true either. if it plainly says what it is.

do you really think that you are here by chance and arent special?

what makes you different if its just a big opps.

because that my friend is the alternative you say, nothing became something and organised it self. and we here by that nothing chance that chance produce the first working brain.

and somehow by luck we survived.

 

[abrown9]

look at the hebrew and what they called words or bats and then comment.

ie in hebraic culture they call all mustard seeds small seeds not mustard seeds like we do.

of course that doenst mean that they the lord didnt dictate this or tell them.

would you tell a child what the atomic theory is at age one?

he wouldnt understand.

i have looked for the ot hebrew world at age one. i honestly admit that these men were scientists
but that doesnt mean what you say is true either. if it plainly says what it is.

do you really think that you are here by chance and arent special?

what makes you different if its just a big opps.

because that my friend is the alternative you say, nothing became something and organised it self. and we here by that nothing chance that chance produce the first working brain.

and somehow by luck we survived.

I'm sorry, I little to no understanding of Hebrew, so perhaps you could explain how that passage was mistranslated to me. I would assume, however, that Hebrew has a word for "birds" and a word for "bats".

You are correct in listing what I do believe: Abiogenesis and the "Randomness" of mutations that led to our self-consciousness (Through the very non-random process of Natural selection).

My argument, however, if correct, does not mean that god does not exist. It merely seeks to show how a literally interpreted Bible is incompatible with science. Instead, the bible is either filled with allegory (and is the direct word of God) or is literal but subject to the limited knowledge of contempories (and thus is not the direct word of god). You are likely correct when you say God would not tell a child the atomic theory at age one. Its the same reason why high school students learn the Bohr model of the atom to understand it before they scrap that in later years (as it is wrong). Maybe God thought natural selection would be too confusing a subject for the writer of Genesis.

I don't need to be different and I don't need to be special. I'm perfectly comfortable being part of nature and a result of natural selection. I will admit that we likely have very little knowledge of how life works. There certainly seems to be a self-organizing behaviour in a lot of living systems. Likely we will discover more in coming centuries. This does not indicate to me at all that there is supernatural playing. As a species we have attributed many things to the supernatural. That list is shrinking as we discover more natural causes.

We should stick to the topic at hand, however, which is the compatibility of the bible with science. I have presented an argument that shows a scientific (no matter how small) innacuracy in the bible. To me, this indicates only two possibilities: Allegory or human involvement. Please counter this argument with another possibility. Instead you seem to be falling back on the common argument that "It is all too special to have occurred by chance". If it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here having this debate. So a discussion of the low probability is just moot.

 

[jasoncran]

I'm sorry, I little to no understanding of Hebrew, so perhaps you could explain how that passage was mistranslated to me. I would assume, however, that Hebrew has a word for "birds" and a word for "bats".

You are correct in listing what I do believe: Abiogenesis and the "Randomness" of mutations that led to our self-consciousness (Through the very non-random process of Natural selection).

My argument, however, if correct, does not mean that god does not exist. It merely seeks to show how a literally interpreted Bible is incompatible with science. Instead, the bible is either filled with allegory (and is the direct word of God) or is literal but subject to the limited knowledge of contempories (and thus is not the direct word of god). You are likely correct when you say God would not tell a child the atomic theory at age one. Its the same reason why high school students learn the Bohr model of the atom to understand it before they scrap that in later years (as it is wrong). Maybe God thought natural selection would be too confusing a subject for the writer of Genesis.

I don't need to be different and I don't need to be special. I'm perfectly comfortable being part of nature and a result of natural selection. I will admit that we likely have very little knowledge of how life works. There certainly seems to be a self-organizing behaviour in a lot of living systems. Likely we will discover more in coming centuries. This does not indicate to me at all that there is supernatural playing. As a species we have attributed many things to the supernatural. That list is shrinking as we discover more natural causes.

We should stick to the topic at hand, however, which is the compatibility of the bible with science. I have presented an argument that shows a scientific (no matter how small) innacuracy in the bible. To me, this indicates only two possibilities: Allegory or human involvement. Please counter this argument with another possibility. Instead you seem to be falling back on the common argument that "It is all too special to have occurred by chance". If it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here having this debate. So a discussion of the low probability is just moot.

ok then.

heres the problem while its true that the writers didnt know the entire workings of natural science and the earth.

the bible as i stated isnt meant to be a manual of scientific nature.
but i take issue when the athiest says that God doesnt exist and teach evolution in his place.
if God says nature proclaims the glory of him.

how can the theisitic evolutionist reconcile the idea that natural selection that is the driving force of the toe not have an intellegence?

he cant without some serious mental gymanistics.

for instance,

adam and eve if they say they are literal then what of the other billions or millions of h.neanderthalis that lived and if i recall they could think in abstract?

the rcc in general takes the side of the theistic evolutionist but doesnt accept the idea of calvinism of limited atonement or freewill.

hello if adam and eve are real persons and only they had the chance to sin, what of the other guys and gals?

if not real men then who or what was abel?

as the lord called him a prophet.

 

[Sparkey]

what exactly do we mean by compatible and which understanding of Christianity are we referring to? Biblical literalists have to ensure that science conforms with the Bible as they understand it; non-literalist Christians undoubtedly take a more pragmatic view of the limitations of the writers of the Bible.

Hi, Lordkalvan. It's been a couple years since we spoke directly to each other and I do remember. When we spoke before my respect for your knowledge grew. Does this demonstrate potential "compatibility" sufficiently? You may already know that I could be classified as a "literalist". Literalists need to understand the "High Commands" of God and keep them in mind so they don't fall into the habit of thinking too much of themselves or their beliefs.

If there is to be any real compatibility (agreement) we, both sides, have a lot of work to do. I see things differently than you, not to say "with more clarity" but with a distinct and different point of view. We are both looking at the same thing though.

~Sparrow

 

[abrown9]

ok then.

heres the problem while its true that the writers didnt know the entire workings of natural science and the earth.

the bible as i stated isnt meant to be a manual of scientific nature.
but i take issue when the athiest says that God doesnt exist and teach evolution in his place.
if God says nature proclaims the glory of him.

how can the theisitic evolutionist reconcile the idea that natural selection that is the driving force of the toe not have an intellegence?

he cant without some serious mental gymanistics.

for instance,

adam and eve if they say they are literal then what of the other billions or millions of h.neanderthalis that lived and if i recall they could think in abstract?

the rcc in general takes the side of the theistic evolutionist but doesnt accept the idea of calvinism of limited atonement or freewill.

hello if adam and eve are real persons and only they had the chance to sin, what of the other guys and gals?

if not real men then who or what was abel?

as the lord called him a prophet.

I think it would be wrong for a teacher to tell his/her students that god does not exist. It would also be wrong, however, for a teacher to give equal weight to the TOE and a Creationist world view. The goal of the science teacher is to explain to students how the natural world works according to the consensus observations of generations of scientists. Religion should not factor in at all. The teacher should not mention God in the classroom, in either a negative or positive light. Theology should be kept to a religious studies class.

I'm not a Theistic evolutionist, but if I was, I would find it much easier to hold that standpoint than a Literalist. A Biblical Literalist basically must reject the findings of science on principle. If not, then they are guilty of cherrypicking theories that fit their worldview and rejecting those that do not. There is not reason (beyond conflict within the bible) to reject the TOE outright anymore than any other widely accepted (and less controversial theory).

If I were a Theistic Evolutionist, I would view myself as a child of God and the bible as a set of "fables" which carry an overarching message. It would not matter to me if the world was actually created in six days. What I would draw from the bible would be the overarching message of morality. We often teach our children with stories that carry a good moral but are based in fantasy. Did the boy actually have to be eaten by a wolf to hammer home the message of "not crying wolf"? Of course not.

And a happy new year to you!

Cheers

 

[jasoncran]

I think it would be wrong for a teacher to tell his/her students that god does not exist. It would also be wrong, however, for a teacher to give equal weight to the TOE and a Creationist world view. The goal of the science teacher is to explain to students how the natural world works according to the consensus observations of generations of scientists. Religion should not factor in at all. The teacher should not mention God in the classroom, in either a negative or positive light. Theology should be kept to a religious studies class.

I'm not a Theistic evolutionist, but if I was, I would find it much easier to hold that standpoint than a Literalist. A Biblical Literalist basically must reject the findings of science on principle. If not, then they are guilty of cherrypicking theories that fit their worldview and rejecting those that do not. There is not reason (beyond conflict within the bible) to reject the TOE outright anymore than any other widely accepted (and less controversial theory).

If I were a Theistic Evolutionist, I would view myself as a child of God and the bible as a set of "fables" which carry an overarching message. It would not matter to me if the world was actually created in six days. What I would draw from the bible would be the overarching message of morality. We often teach our children with stories that carry a good moral but are based in fantasy. Did the boy actually have to be eaten by a wolf to hammer home the message of "not crying wolf"? Of course not.

And a happy new year to you!

Cheers

because when the hebrews that wrote the bible in thier language, they know what is poetry to them what isnt.

If God's men who he charged with the bible to know how to read it cant do that then why bother with christianity.

if God cant control men, how much more so with salvation as we cant know what God wants.

and what if in the future that the toe is thrown out?

so genesis is what?

And Jesus was lying then when he said abel was a man who was his prophet?

so the thieistic evolutionist must then challenge God on that?!!!!

 

[jasoncran]

the problem of your view is this NATURALISM its a world a view on one world view must dominate

•(philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations

one of many for that one but that applies.

and word view(we both have them)

•A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. ...


think about this.
did you know that the monkey trial didnt use any evidence?

There was no physical evidence presented at the Scopes Trial. No expert witness testified before the jury. Only one expert was allowed to speak directly to the court. Statements from experts were read into the transcript at one point. However, no expert whether speaking directly or via affidavit mentioned Nebraska Man in the trial.
The Scopes Trial generated a lot of publicity, and the possibility remains that commentators outside the trial made mention of Nebraska Man. However, this still renders the original assertion false. The Institute for Creation Research grudgingly admits that Nebraska Man was not entered as evidence.

[...] The imaginative newspaper coverage and the timing of the find made a big impression at the 1925 Scopes Trial. Nebraska man was never introduced into the trial, since the lead paleoanthropologist Dr. Fay Cooper cole had some misgivings about it, but it was there nonetheless.
[End quote -- RM Cornelius & JD Morris, 1995, Scopes: Creation on Trial, ICR, p.40.]

 

[abrown9]

because when the hebrews that wrote the bible in thier language, they know what is poetry to them what isnt.

Where are you basing this from? Not denying it, but I would like to see some sources.

If God's men who he charged with the bible to know how to read it cant do that then why bother with christianity.

if God cant control men, how much more so with salvation as we cant know what God wants.

Maybe God doesn't need to control men? Maybe all this fear of fire and brimstone is only meant to improve the moral character of man? Just like you probably won't be eaten by a wolf if you continually cry to your parents, but the fear of the wolf might make you act the right way.

and what if in the future that the toe is thrown out?

Then another theory will take over. A literal 6 day creation involving a young earth has already been thrown out, however, so its not point guessing what might actually have happened. Science does not prove something, rather, it postulates and disproves. The TOE has stood up to over a century of criticism and has not been disproved yet. Lets not write a premature obituary.

so genesis is what?

A chapter in a book.

And Jesus was lying then when he said abel was a man who was his prophet?

so the thieistic evolutionist must then challenge God on that?!!!!

I don't see how accepting natural selection makes Abel not a man and not a prophet.