[_ Old Earth _] ways how christianity and science go together.

[xounstaer]

1 day is as thousand year(s)

to me, that explains, how at least or to begin with, the theory of the first 2 pages from genisis, about how all was created. can be brought together with the evolution theory for at least a bit.

what do you know that's also bound to science and christianity?

 

[jasoncran]

the problem for your position is that evolution takes longer then 1000 yrs in some cases.

 

[Sinthesis]

the problem for your position is that evolution takes longer then 1000 yrs in some cases.

That's OK, because with God 1000 yrs is as 365 million yrs.

 

[jasoncran]

so is God still creating new life on this earth?

 

[lordkalvan]

so is God still creating new life on this earth?

An interesting question. New species are being discovered every year, some remarkably large such as Attenborough's Pitcher Plant. So are these 'new' species or have they 'always' been there simply awaiting discovery? Have they been seen before, but simply not identified? Are there ways we can tell? Well, molecular biology would suggest that, yes, we can tell how long they have been around, but if we discard such evidence then it seems to me that we cannot be certain one way or the other short of finding preserved specimens that can be reliably dated..

 

[xounstaer]

what do you consider new life?.

i mean evolution of the mind and the holy ghost beings spread isnt that also a form of evolution, only then mentally.

just to give another point..

 

[jasoncran]

An interesting question. New species are being discovered every year, some remarkably large such as Attenborough's Pitcher Plant. So are these 'new' species or have they 'always' been there simply awaiting discovery? Have they been seen before, but simply not identified? Are there ways we can tell? Well, molecular biology would suggest that, yes, we can tell how long they have been around, but if we discard such evidence then it seems to me that we cannot be certain one way or the other short of finding preserved specimens that can be reliably dated..

i am not at presently debating the toe per say but rather the discarding of the part where God rested and the problem that presents. if noah ate animals why then was he commanded (or allowed) to eat animals if he was already an ominivore?Or why doesnt the oper believe in calvinism as adam and eve if they were a real couple and or persons had to have fellow h.sapiens. Surely there peers were as intellegent.

 

[jasoncran]

what do you consider new life?.

i mean evolution of the mind and the holy ghost beings spread isnt that also a form of evolution, only then mentally.

just to give another point..

i hate when that connonation of evolution is used just like that. while i can see why god directs the believers life far more then some logarithim function. if you take it that way then we are selecting the species we eat via breeding and or biotechnology aka gmos!

can you state what evolution is so that we can talk on this alone?

 

[Scandinavian27]

The bible describes the suspension of the earth in space.

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.


Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.

The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.

Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

More here: Science and the Bible

 

[Pard]

In regards to the OP...

I took a sociology class this year. I hated it. Worst. Class. Ever. I nicked named it the Victim-maker because all it taught me was how I can take any person in the world and spin them into the most helpless victim you have ever seen. Seriously, I hated that class. It taught me one small, tiny, itty-bitty, little thing that will stick with me for a while. And that miniscule thing can be summed up in a not so small word:

Perspective.

You're coming at this from the wrong perspective. I see you are Christian. Based on some of the other posts, can I assume you are a new Christian and that you were not raised into Christianity? Neither was I. So I had to learn these things as I went, but it makes the world of difference, so let me pass it on to you.

Here's the thing that I have been meaning to get to. You need to look at science from the perspective of Christianity, and at this current time you are trying to fit Christianity into science. The Bible makes perfect sense, even in a scientific light, but you may need to question if the science is right or not.

It's not all that different from what you are doing, except you are viewing science as perfect sense and trying to trim the Bible into it.

I hope that helps you see that Christianity goes hand in hand with science. Science is man's attempt to understand God's Creation. There is no need to use odd, head scratching math to make 1 = 1000.

 

[Deavonreye]

The bible describes the suspension of the earth in space.

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.


Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.

The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.

Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

More here: Science and the Bible

Realistically, most of these things could have been understood by just obvservation. I see nothing to indicate that the writer was oblivious to these thing and was suddenly "taken back" by them. They are still a flawed observation at that. For instance, "curtains" and "tent", along WITH "circle" is more at home with flat earth ideologies. Not a sphere shape.

There are also scriptures that errantly state a few incects having only four legs and bats being birds.

 

[Scandinavian27]

I would have to disagree there. There would be no other reason to include a 'circular earth' in the verse if they actually believed it be flat. They would blatantly state that.

I also don't see the bat vs bird being a big dilemma, as man has been known to periodically change the definitions of animals mentioned in the bible. It happened with the leviathon and behemoth as we now know as dinosaurs.

 

[Pard]

I fail to see a problem with calling a bat a bird.

How old are animal classifications?

...

Exactly!

Furthermore, there are many ways to classify an animal, like by means of transportation, perhaps?

 

[Deavonreye]

A circle is NOT a sphere.

A bat is a mammal.



Of course a bible literalists wouldn't find issue with these things because he is using his/her preconceived "answers" to fit within a science debate . If the bible were inerrant, the things I mentioned would not have been stated.. . . . . [again, such as "incects that walk on all fours"].

 

[Pard]

Bats have wings...

Bird have wings...

I fail to see a problem.

And the circle/sphere thing

You are aware that Hebrew doesn't really have a word for sphere? "Dur" is used in some places but it is also used for "circle". Of course this isn't the place for theological debate.

If you'd like to post this in the theological section I'd be more than happy to prove you wrong.

 

[xounstaer]

In regards to the OP...

I took a sociology class this year. I hated it. Worst. Class. Ever. I nicked named it the Victim-maker because all it taught me was how I can take any person in the world and spin them into the most helpless victim you have ever seen. Seriously, I hated that class. It taught me one small, tiny, itty-bitty, little thing that will stick with me for a while. And that miniscule thing can be summed up in a not so small word:

Perspective.

You're coming at this from the wrong perspective. I see you are Christian. Based on some of the other posts, can I assume you are a new Christian and that you were not raised into Christianity? Neither was I. So I had to learn these things as I went, but it makes the world of difference, so let me pass it on to you.

Here's the thing that I have been meaning to get to. You need to look at science from the perspective of Christianity, and at this current time you are trying to fit Christianity into science. The Bible makes perfect sense, even in a scientific light, but you may need to question if the science is right or not.

It's not all that different from what you are doing, except you are viewing science as perfect sense and trying to trim the Bible into it.

I hope that helps you see that Christianity goes hand in hand with science. Science is man's attempt to understand God's Creation. There is no need to use odd, head scratching math to make 1 = 1000.

yes i indeed do believe science and christianity can easily or do go hand in hand.
but i also think christianity doesnt just end at the bible and whats in the bible but goes beyond. what ways christianity and science go together therefor, i am looking ahead..

btw that class could have more use..and it reminds me of being for or against for example proving that god exist or so...

here's one way i am pretty sure that believe/christianity and science go combined even giving a new result' in birth (i allready spoke of it in another topic)

i believe sinceraly that dna can be altered through happenings, so when a man of 30 and a woman of 30, who together have ca 60 years of experience and happenings that 'formed' them. when they put a child on this earth it will partly be a result of that, and the other part(s) is what every human being has got. now that child will grow up to become adult...

this can ofcourse also be put in a mold(?*) of christian terms or ways.
-----


and yes i wasnt exactly raised with religion but i have got some experience from an evangelic church where i used to go to for a few years. i spended most of my time back then with canadian evangelists in belgium. i really havent changed a lot since then; i still wouldnt pray out loud among people..(that's just not me, if i pray or so i do it in sile.....getting of topic.

 

[Deavonreye]

Bats have wings...

Bird have wings...

I fail to see a problem.

And the circle/sphere thing

You are aware that Hebrew doesn't really have a word for sphere? "Dur" is used in some places but it is also used for "circle". Of course this isn't the place for theological debate.

If you'd like to post this in the theological section I'd be more than happy to prove you wrong.

HENCE . . . . . where the problem lies.

IF the bible is "the inerrant word of god", you can't call a bat "a bird".

The use of the "a tent", "foundation", "cornerstone", etc. [all found in the bible] are directly eluding to a flat earth. . . . . exactly what ancient primative men believed. . . . .that the earth was flat, that there was a curtain over the land where the stars, sun, and moon were all placed upon. I don't know what "fancy scripture turn of phrases" you would use in the "theological section", but it is irrelevant to what is actually IN the bible and how it relates to science.