There are no such thing as dinosaurs. They are not mentioned in the Bible.
-
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
- Thread starter tosca1
- Start date
cladking
Well-Known Member
Curiously though ancient people seem to have understood fossils;
388a. It is N. who inundated the land after it had come out of the ocean; it is N. who pulled up the papyrus;
This pre-dates the Bible by many centuries. In order to know it came out of the ocean they pretty much mustta seen marine fossils in it.
388a. It is N. who inundated the land after it had come out of the ocean; it is N. who pulled up the papyrus;
This pre-dates the Bible by many centuries. In order to know it came out of the ocean they pretty much mustta seen marine fossils in it.
siti
Well-Known Member
No - not because they just literally plucked out their eyes.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Oh, I now understand. If it is not in the bible it does not exist. I now feel enlightened.
You know, I think there is a name for that. I believe I have heard it mentioned here before, but I cannot recall it.
So far, he has done nothing, but he is crowing all about it as if he did. It is all typical creationist drivel and pigeon chess.
Did you read his recap? He brought in new claims and then summarized them without providing evidence for them in the first place.
I have seen no evidence that a significant number of scientists see harmony between the Bible and science. It is the opposite. Much of what we know through science, contradicts the claims of the Genesis. Theistic evolution is not harmonious with the Bible and is an attempt to conform belief with what is observed in nature. Observations that contradict the claims of Genesis. As a belief, it is harmonious with science and not with the Bible.
The claim that many scientists follow some alternative view of what a 24 hour day meant and that it could have been a geological age has not been established either. Some scientists may believe that, but we do not know how many or what proportion they represent. None of that information was ever provided. The only correct statement he made was that attempts like this are done to reconcile belief with science. But this only emphasizes that the Bible and science are not in harmony and imagination has to be applied to get Genesis to come close to harmony with science.
All the evidence he has that the Bible contains science are coincidence, a few, possibly accurate, descriptions that could be the result of observant authors and nothing more and unsupported claims that vague descriptions of land and sea represent ancient super-continents.
The Bible says that life was created in the water and on land. That does not fit with anything in science as the point of origin of life. I would hope that the people of the time were observant enough to recognize gender differences and would have found it more interesting if they had left that out, rather than include the obvious, that hardly merits consideration as evidence of the application of science. A snake with limbs is pure coincidence, since the information supporting that was unavailable to the authors of the Bible.
All he has is his desire that these things be true. That and all the typical creationist tricks and arrogance.
This is so true. I wish that air conditioning were in there. I could use a break from the heat.
We are all just a touch more intelligent from having him here to set us straight.
Kinds. Still does not mean anything in science.
Science is still not described in the Bible and science is still not harmonious with the Bible. However, to make it harmonious with science, it has to be reinterpreted based on unsupported assumptions.
The origin of life and the evolution of life are still related, but distinct concepts and studies.
He has done splendidly.
I see a lot of creationists with eyes stumbling around, because their demand of an infallible Bible does not hold up against the evidence. It gets them to behave like chickens that had their heads plucked off.
It is not a very good attempt, since the methods of science are driven to follow the evidence and not to ignore it or reorder it for artistic purposes.
I would say it was a direct hit and you sank his battleship.Obviously I've hit the nail on the head.
.
Now you are just throwing out evidence and raising questions he is going to have to ignore, because kind has no use in explaining these.
No support for the new claims???? Wear your glasses!
No wonder. Why is that any surprise? Lol. Even after I've used colored fonts - you still didn't even see the support for the new claims I gave!
Let me guess this: Life begins in the water, genders, the snake's limbs, one land/one ocean, the human body, man's dominion over animals - all those, just coincidence?
As a homicide investigator would say, "that's one coincidence too many....." or "I don't believe in coincidence."
So - the very "observant" author saw the snake lose its limbs, eh?
It happened while it was shedding its skin?
....and the observant author was right there - all alone - when the earth was so young that there was only one big land mass and one big ocean!
Oh boy......
Where did life originate?
Do you ever wonder why the first thing scientists look for in other planets or stars is signs of.........water?
Search for Water on Other Planets Takes Giant Leap Forward
< yawn >
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Evidence that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
Typical creationist insult when challenged on the lack of evidence. Still no evidence.
Typical arrogant creationist behavior that does not provide the evidence that has been identified as absent from all the empty claims. No surprises yet.No wonder. Why is that any surprise? Lol. Even after I've used colored fonts - you still didn't even see the support for the new claims I gave!
All the Bible says is the waters were teaming with life and that land animals were created on land. Science does not hypothesize multiple origins for aquatic and terrestrial life.
A general observation that does not require a knowledge of science. Who would expect that ancient people would not be aware of gender differences? Well, creationists I seems.
Coincidence. Certainly not information that has been identified and supported as available to the authors of the Bible. God did it probably. Which is not science and rules out the claim of harmony.
Ambiguous and stretched to mean whatever the creationist wants it to mean.
This is the case cracker. The one that throws all objections out. Humans writing about people and describing human bodies. No one ever heard of such a thing outside of the Bible and science.
There are no hypotheses, claims, theories or laws in science claiming man has dominion over animals - all those, just coincidence?[/QUOTE]None of these mean that there is harmony in between the Bible and science. Some of them are ridiculous. Others coincidence. Some are just made up.
Who cares. It has no value in supporting your claims and means nothing.
An irrelevant false statement that does not describe what I wrote or support a claim of science in the Bible or harmony between the Bible and science.So - the very "observant" author saw the snake lose its limbs, eh?
It happened while it was shedding its skin?
Typical creationist arrogance that has nothing to do with supporting claims made by that creationist.
....and the observant author was right there - all alone - when the earth was so young that there was only one big land mass and one big ocean!
There is no clear indication of what is meant by waters gathered together and land gathered together. You claim a meaning, but you have not established it. All we see is your silly behavior as a response.
Last edited:
I am pretty sure he provided that evidence with the first post. All the rest since is supplementary.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Can you debate properly? This sort of action may get you banned eventually. What you are doing now is cherry picking verses taken out of context and ignoring the successes.
What you need to do is to find some scientific discovery that was due to something found in the Bible. I doubt if you can do that. Once again matching reality to the Bible after the fact does not count. By that standard the Qu'ran beats the Bible. Your present technique in effect refutes the Bible since Muslims can do this ten times as well.
Some day-age believers will say that, after so many years - the water was teeming with life. Don't forget, to those who believe in day-age theories, things were not happening in mere days!
here's one day-age interpretation for that:
Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation
Of course he cannot. He is not here to debate. This is a show for him. It is all about the Pigeon Chess.
If he were serious and believed what he had to say was worth saying, he would have left out all the false claims of persecution, insults, rhetoric, unsupported claims and he would have accepted the responsibility of responding rationally and reasonably. Instead, it is just his attempt at demeaning others.
It is irrelevant what people believe in order to re-interpret the Bible to fit with the evidence. What is relevant is that the claims of the Bible are actually not in harmony with the findings of science and attempts like day/age hypotheses illustrate that clearly.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, with almost zero knowledge of the areas he is debating in all he can show is mastery of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Is there a queue of creationists waiting to get on this forum and just repeat the same claims, lacking any evidence and follow it up with a standard set of tactics based on insults, personal attacks and logical fallacies?
I have difficulty telling one from the next. They are so carbon copy. At least Patriottechsan provided a little novelty to his approach by addressing no one in particular. It was rude, but novel.