• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science In The Bible

siti

Well-Known Member
Even the dogs would know that!
Apparently not.

s-l300.jpg
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Let me get this clear.
So.....you're saying, when you guys don't want a subject, you try your best to trash the thread?
I didn't read much of your thread so I was unaware that people had trashed it. That's very unusual around here.

That, there's a clique of you old members, who purposefully shut down subjects you don't like?
Not at all; however, many of us are of the same mind, as are a lot of Christians, Muslims, etc.. So there is likely to be a lot of commonality in what we say or don't say. My guess is that you're more use to speaking to the choir rather than the "devil."

As for "shutting down" subjects, this simply doesn't happen. For one thing we have a great bunch of moderators who watch the posts for infractions, and pay attention to any complaints they get. For another thing, no one decides what direction a thread will take. Typically a thread will stay on topic until interest wains, and will then sometimes go off in another direction, or just die. Or, it may diverge into two or more interests, with people posting in all of them. Thing is, a topic will only last as long as people want to respond to it. I've had threads that have lasted for hundreds of post, most of which stayed on topic. Then again I've had threads that have fractured almost immediately, and those that haven't lasted 10 replies. There is simply no way to tell where your topic will go. About all you can do, as I have occasionally done, is to request that everybody try to stay on topic, at least for awhile.

In other words, I'm being graciously given a warning - considering I'm a newbie?
Not at all. There is no such thing. Interest and interest alone dictates the direction a thread takes.

Is that what you're saying here?
Again, not at all. My comment,

"when you bring up the issue of origins with evolution every pro-evolutionist on the forum pretty much shuts down,"

was only to let you know that most pro-evolutionists would have little or no interest in pursuing the issue, so more likely than not you won't get much of a debate going, at least from them. BUT, I've been wrong before. So :shrug:


Just a note on measuring the success of a thread. If the number of replies is a tenth or more of the number of views, the thread is doing well.

.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Gimme a break! You don't speak for all evolutionists!

There are evolutionists who wonder if science and religion are compatible. Many scientists say they are.

You don't censor what views can be brought forth in a forum (as long as they're within the forum rules).
You're not the only member, nor the only viewer here! Lol.
But there is only one point for including reference to evolution and those that understand it. This is consistent with your previous thread where you were supporting ideas that mixed the origin of life with the evolution of life. This is a consistent theme with you and here I thought you would have understood that by now, you being a veteran debater on the subject.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Gimme a break! You don't speak for all evolutionists!
Of course not. However I've been around both sciences long enough to know where their professional interests lie, and it isn't within each other.

There are evolutionists who wonder if science and religion are compatible.
Yes there are, but so what?

Many scientists say they are.
Say they are what??

You don't censor what views can be brought forth in a forum (as long as they're within the forum rules).
You're not the only member, nor the only viewer here! Lol.
Now this is sad. Quite sad. I'm sorry you've mislead yourself. Really, I am.

.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
On genders.....


Genesis 1
20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birdsg]">[g] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.


24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


26 Then God said, “Let us make manh]">[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”


27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.



All the creatures that God created - He just spoke them into creation. He told them to be fruitful and multiply.
Nothing is stated about genders. But the phrase, "after their kind" is repeatedly stated. Why?

The only time God referred to genders - male and female - was when He created man. Why?

Is it a coincidence that God never mentioned any genders when it came to the creation of creatures?
And the phrase, "after their kind," is repeated?


Science discovered that some creatures are asexual. They can reproduce without having any mate.
Genders are a social construct, sex as a noun is a scientific label.

After their kind means simply that. Wolves don´t mate with lizards.

He refers to the sex of humans, male and female.

Need He have to repeat it for every animal type ? And yes, some animals reproduce asexually, so ??
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I didn't read much of your thread so I was unaware that people had trashed it. That's very unusual around here.
Questions were asked and some people did not take his condescending tone without comment.


Not at all; however, many of us are of the same mind, as are a lot of Christians, Muslims, etc.. So there is likely to be a lot of commonality in what we say or don't say. My guess is that you're more use to speaking to the choir rather than the "devil."
I had some other thoughts about his relationship to the "devil", but I do not post everything that comes to mind.

I agree. There are many people here of like mind on science, even if ideologies vary or do not much exist at all. It would be very surprising not to see several familiar faces look in, even if they did not stay. I saw that here today.

As for "shutting down" subjects, this simply doesn't happen. For one thing we have a great bunch of moderators who watch the posts for infractions, and pay attention to any complaints they get. For another thing, no one decides what direction a thread will take. Typically a thread will stay on topic until interest wains, and will then sometimes go off in another direction, or just die. Or, it may diverge into two or more interests, with people posting in all of them. Thing is, a topic will only last as long as people want to respond to it. I've had threads that have lasted for hundreds of post, most of which stayed on topic. Then again I've had threads that have fractured almost immediately, and those that haven't lasted 10 replies. There is simply no way to tell where your topic will go. About all you can do, as I have occasionally done, is to request that everybody try to stay on topic, at least for awhile.
This fits with what I have seen.


Not at all. There is no such thing. Interest and interest alone dictates the direction a thread takes.
Agreed. I was on a thread today that moved around to different topics starting with climate change and ending, today anyway, with comments about overpopulation. Admittedly, these can be argued as related, but they are not the same topic.


Again, not at all. My comment,

"when you bring up the issue of origins with evolution every pro-evolutionist on the forum pretty much shuts down,"

was only to let you know that most pro-evolutionists would have little or no interest in pursuing the issue, so more likely than not you won't get much of a debate going, at least from them. BUT, I've been wrong before. So :shrug:
I was interested based on the contradiction of his claim that the Bible was not a science book followed by his claims that it was, at least in part. This was coupled with an interest in knowing what the point of all of this was. Apparently, he was "marvelling" and wanted us all to know.

Just a note on measuring the success of a thread. If the number of replies is a tenth or more of the number of views, the thread is doing well.
Interesting. I have not progressed to metrics and assessing the success or failure of threads. I would imagine that sometimes a thread could get a high number of views, but few comments, due to a large volume of agreement with the OP. Though, it would not be something easily recognizable, since no response is evidence of nothing more than no response.


.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Too many jokes. Head hurts.
Well I did try a serious comment and the thread originator disowned it...I'm not sure he'll appreciate the humourous approach much more but I felt obliged to try.

More seriously, I actually think it is deeply sad that a venerable ancient scriptural tradition that actually encapsulates several centuries of human wisdom can be so easily reduced to the level of absurdity by fundamentalist and literalist interpretations (by proponents and opponents) of works that themselves freely admit were written "in parables" (Psalm 78:2). The Bible is not about what God did and what God did next like some kind of supernatural "Katy Did" series...its about what it is like to be a human being and a human tribe in an iron age agricultural community beset by internal tensions, external threats and capricious natural occurrences - and most of all, about such a tribe and such a person's relationship to the greater reality as he and they saw it. We can learn an enormous amount from it if we put it into its proper context - but an educated person in the 21st century suggesting that God literally struck off the legs of the serpent in an act of vengeance against it for acting as the Devil's apostasy-inducing mouthpiece in Eden...and then claiming that scientific evidence somehow bears this out...well really, that idea deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule (IMNSHO)...

...however, I settled for the dog thing because it was kind of funnier and a little less tragic to think about than how profoundly this kind of (un)thinking undermines and undervalues a 2500 year old mystical and allegorical text from which we might otherwise learn something meaningful.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Well I did try a serious comment and the thread originator disowned it...I'm not sure he'll appreciate the humourous approach much more but I felt obliged to try.

More seriously, I actually think it is deeply sad that a venerable ancient scriptural tradition that actually encapsulates several centuries of human wisdom can be so easily reduced to the level of absurdity by fundamentalist and literalist interpretations (by proponents and opponents) of works that themselves freely admit were written "in parables" (Psalm 78:2). The Bible is not about what God did and what God did next like some kind of supernatural "Katy Did" series...its about what it is like to be a human being and a human tribe in an iron age agricultural community beset by internal tensions, external threats and capricious natural occurrences - and most of all, about such a tribe and such a person's relationship to the greater reality as he and they saw it. We can learn an enormous amount from it if we put it into its proper context - but an educated person in the 21st century suggesting that God literally struck off the legs of the serpent in an act of vengeance against it for acting as the Devil's apostasy-inducing mouthpiece in Eden...and then claiming that scientific evidence somehow bears this out...well really, that idea deserves nothing but ridicule...

...however, I settled for the dog thing because it was kind of funnier and a little less tragic to think about than how profoundly this kind of (un)thinking undermines and undervalues a 2500 year old mystical and allegorical text from which we might otherwise learn something meaningful from.
I could not help but wonder if the little dogs friends put him up to it.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Let me be clear about this: the Bible is not a science book.
However, with that being said - I couldn't help but see the science in it.
From an evolutionist's perspective - Genesis is loaded!

Like this one:



Genesis 1
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,


Moving creatures that has life, came to life in the water!
salt water.....freshwater pond ........water is water.





https://phys.org/news/2012-02-scientist-life-began-freshwater-pond.html


Doesn't that strikes a chord with Darwinists?


The way I see it, man and animals made from the dust of the earth does not sound anything like theistic evolution.

God formed man from the clay and breathed life into him? I just don't see evolution in the ordinary use of words there.

And what of death entering the world through sin? or men and animals only eating fruit, seeds and vegetation? also doesn't fit evolution.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I can't wait until we get to genetics in Genesis. Goat breeding for dummies.
Funny you should mention that. I have already seen an argument that goats or sheep in the Bible depicted selective breeding based on a divine understanding of genetics.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The way I see it, man and animals made from the dust of the earth does not sound anything like theistic evolution.

God formed man from the clay and breathed life into him? I just don't see evolution in the ordinary use of words there.

And what of death entering the world through sin? or men and animals only eating fruit, seeds and vegetation? also doesn't fit evolution.
So you agree that the Bible is wrong. Finally we are getting somewhere.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
On genders.....


Genesis 1
20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birdsg]">[g] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.


24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


26 Then God said, “Let us make manh]">[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”


27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.



All the creatures that God created - He just spoke them into creation. He told them to be fruitful and multiply.
Nothing is stated about genders. But the phrase, "after their kind" is repeatedly stated. Why?

The only time God referred to genders - male and female - was when He created man. Why?

Is it a coincidence that God never mentioned any genders when it came to the creation of creatures?
And the phrase, "after their kind," is repeated?


Science discovered that some creatures are asexual. They can reproduce without having any mate.

This is the perfect post to show that the bible has nothing to do with science. Thank you. It is so clear how it differs from what is known about how life evolved on earth. (Livestock premade for humans to use before humans, Birds before land animals. And of course there are no other species that have male and female other than man with man giving birth to woman) You have made it clear that there is no connection. In addition your recommendation for the National Academy of Science publication supports the clear separation of science and creation myths.
Of course this comes at no surprise since all creation myths including genesis are just that myths. Intended to teach the values of a group of people who share common belief myths transfer values and teach morals but that's where they stop. The unrelenting need to prove that Genesis is the actual way things happened degrades what the myth was intended for.
I have mentioned this before but when comparing the Creation myth of Genesis with the creation myth of Sky Woman we see how two different myths impart different teachings that relate the relationship of their believers to their would. In Genesis we find domination over the natural world in the Sky Woman myth there is cooperation and respect between the human and non-human natural world. Two different myths to teach two different views of their worlds.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
The way I see it, man and animals made from the dust of the earth does not sound anything like theistic evolution.

God formed man from the clay and breathed life into him? I just don't see evolution in the ordinary use of words there.

And what of death entering the world through sin? or men and animals only eating fruit, seeds and vegetation? also doesn't fit evolution.
Of course you would not. Evolution is not about the origin of life. Never has been. Theistic evolution considers that God created everything and uses evolution for the diversity of life, guiding it when needed.

Where does this idea come from that animals only ate vegetables and fruit before the mythical flood?
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
You miss the point, Dan.

I'm not saying everything written in Genesis is confirmed by, or is consistent with science! I'm only giving the ones that are!

Please folks, take a deep breath before responding!
Gee....just with my initial post - some of you reacted like popcorn that just got nuked in the microwave!
You all started popping!
That's what you do. You pick out things out of context and create your interpretation that distorts the full context of the passage where they came from.
 

siti

Well-Known Member

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Of course you would not. Evolution is not about the origin of life. Never has been. Theistic evolution considers that God created everything and uses evolution for the diversity of life, guiding it when needed.

Where does this idea come from that animals only ate vegetables and fruit before the mythical flood?
That appears to be an AiG concept. Ironically they think that T-Rex was a vegetarian. I guess those prehistoric plants put up quite the battle:rolleyes:

Sharp Teeth Eating Plants?

Though it appears they think T-Rex was a vegetarian until The Fall. Oh how I love AiG at timeso_O:D
 
Last edited:
Top