• 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

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
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
So the Bible could tell us all this "sciencey stuff", but failed to tell us anything about dinosaurs or the magical change in digestion physiology, coupled with the magical development of all the traits necessary to make the jump from herbivory to carnivory. Thank goodness that AIG is there to fill in those gaps.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Genesis 1
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good.



Waters gathered into one place. Land appeared.
By that, it must mean God had created one mass of dry land, and one great body of water called, "seas."


The Bible must be referring to the super continent called Pangaea, and the single giant ocean called, Panthalassa!


Well.....according to science....


Facts About Pangaea, Ancient Supercontinent



to be continued.......more to come.
I think possibly the most ludicrous bit of Genesis, from a science viewpoint, is that day and night are said to have been created on the first day (Gen 1:3) before the sun on the fourth day (Gen 1:14).
sarcastic-laugh-smiley-emoticon.gif



But, to be serious for a moment, the Genesis accounts (two of them, which contradict one another) have been recognised as allegorical from the time of Origen, as I'm sure you are aware.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

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.
I have always thought that sounds like abiogenesis though, the "dust of the Earth" being the inorganic starting materials from which life arose. The only question is how this came about. The scientifically educated Christian would see this as happening through the operation of the (God-given) "laws of nature" , rather than by some series of miraculous events.

The creationist (or "jerk", as he is known in scientific parlance:D) would see it as requiring a whole series of miraculous interventions.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Lol. This one really floored me!


How about the snake!
Genesis implies that the snake used to not slither on its belly - meaning, it must've had legs or limbs before a curse was put on it.


Genesis 3
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!

You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust

all the days of your life.


Well?

>>>>>>>>FAST FORWARD TO THE PRESENT>>>>>>>>>>



Snakes Used to Have Legs and Arms … Until These Mutations Happened




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-evolutionary-journey/?utm_term=.78bfe40e1f29
But hang on. That process is evolution!!!:eek:
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I'm sorry, but I don't see the significance in the fact that you think some of the writers of the bible appear to have made some some vaguely accurate predictions about how things work. People have been making vaguely accurate predictions about things since the beginning of history.
Even Gypsy Rose Lee can't be wrong all the time.

Or a monkey in a multiple choice exam.
 

tosca1

Member
No, 'we cannot stick to that.' I did not say it is known that there was 'no beginning', and please do not 'misquote me,' nor does science say that.

Isaid, "No, science cannot confirm our physical existence had a beginning or not. Science has not confirmed whether our universe began as a singularity or it is cyclic, or science has reasonable evidence that the universe is part of a greater physical existence possibly a multiverse,"

I'm not talking about our physical existence. I'm talking about the universe. It doesn't matter how it began. Right now, that's where it stands.

So I gather, you're not an evolutionist?
 

tosca1

Member
You gave a link that contained a simplistic answer that appears to be wrong. I don't understand your explanation. Are you saying God got it wrong?

Simplistic? Why can't an answer be simple?
Who sez an answer has to be complicated for it to be right?

The simplistic answer given in the article isn't wrong. It was well-explained.
Good thing for that! You just didn't get it right.......like you also didn't get my simple follow-up.

Here is as simple as I can explain it:

You brought up the great dane and the chihuahua.
I've added that obviously - when God said animals of the same kinds also include animals of the same kind........ that CAN!

You think the great dane and the chihuahua didn't know that?
Theirs would just have to be platonic. :)
 
Last edited:

tosca1

Member
Apparently not.

s-l300.jpg

:roll eyes:

AND?
Just because there's an attempt, doesn't mean it can.Take a good look again.
I've also seen dogs try to do a post.....or, a person's leg.

Let me know how their kid looks like.
 
Last edited:

tosca1

Member
I didn't read much of your thread so I was unaware that people had trashed it. That's very unusual around here.


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.


Not at all. There is no such thing. Interest and interest alone dictates the direction a thread takes.


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.

.

Yeah, I know what you mean now. "when you bring up the issue of origins with evolution every pro-evolutionist on the forum pretty much shuts down," ....they get into defensive-mode!
Big time. All-hands-on-deck mode! No kidding. I agree! It's fascinatingly humorous.
It's like they got poked with a hot wire or something. How strange......

They don't get the connection - or, they don't want to have that connection.
Maybe, because origin is just another darn hard thing to explain, on top of what's already so darn hard to explain (macroevolution)! You could almost hear the groanings across the computer. :D
They want origin and evolution neatly separated, and "compartmentalized."
And here we come putting a connection to both! Lol. Of course, heads will be spinning!




The responses here from most non-believers/evolutionists are practically the same in other forums.
That's why I've said in another thread that, it's expected.


And I'm not just talking about the reactions. I'm talking about their posts! The commonality between them makes it seem that they're mining from the same source.
Most likely from the same new-atheist site.

A lot of them are so darn the same that I even tend to give a standard response (other forums). Hey, kinda like, one size fits all ! :)



Actually, you gave me an idea that deserves a separate thread.
Let me work on it (when I get the time).
It won't be long coming, I promise.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran 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.
...not to mention homosexual, too :eek: : List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia
 

tosca1

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.


I don't believe in theistic evolution, either.
I'm just putting myself in the shoes of evolutionists who can connect the Bible with science.

When I discuss with non-believers - I try to do it within their "comfort zones."
They think the Bible is just full of myths.

They point to science as their voice of "authority" - so, I meet them on that ground.
Take away science from them - they've got nothing to stand on!
 

tosca1

Member
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.

No, I don't distort the passage.
I'm looking at it through the lens of an evolutionist. I made that clear in the OP.

There are scientists who do see them that way - they can reconcile the Scriptures with science. Some do it through what they call, "DAY-AGE THEORIES."


The Old-Earth figurative view can be traced back at least to Saint Augustine in the 5th Century who pointed out, in De Genesi ad Litteram (On the Literal [Interpretation of] Genesis) that the "days" in Genesis could not be literal days, if only because Genesis itself tells us that the sun was not made until the fourth "day".[1]

Scottish lawyer and geologist Charles Lyell published his famous and influential work Principles of Geology in 1830–1833 which interpreted geologic change as the steady accumulation of minute changes over enormously long spans of time and that natural processes, uniformly applied over the length of that existence (uniformitarianism), could account for what men saw and studied in creation.
Day-age creationism - Wikipedia
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Simplistic? Why can't an answer be simple?
Who sez an answer has to be complicated for it to be right?

The simplistic answer given in the article isn't wrong. It was well-explained.
Good thing for that! You just didn't get it right.......like you also didn't get my simple follow-up.

Here is as simple as I can explain it:

You brought up the great dane and the chihuahua.
I've added that obviously - when God said animals of the same kinds also include animals of the same kind........ that CAN!

You think the great dane and the chihuahua didn't know that?
Theirs would just have to be platonic. :)

So explain to me in simple terms what a kind is because the link is a fail, according to its definition 2 types of dog can't be the same kind. Shouldn't be too hard for someone as clever as you.
 

tosca1

Member
So explain to me in simple terms what a kind is because the link is a fail, according to its definition 2 types of dog can't be the same kind. Shouldn't be too hard for someone as clever as you.

In Genesis, they are the CREATED kinds. As to what exactly were they - we don't know.

All of these animals’ ancestors that we have discussed above—horses, donkey, zebras, tigers, lions, whales, and dolphins—were created with genetic diversity within their various kinds (or by the older definition of species). Through time, the processes of natural selection, mutation, and other mechanisms have altered that original information (decreased or degenerated) to give us even more variation within a kind.


Great variety can be observed in the offspring of animals of the same kind, just as the same cake recipe can be used to make many different cakes with various flavors and colors. Hybrids have a portion of the same genetic information as their parents but combined in a unique way to give a very unique-looking animal. What an amazing diversity of life God has created for us to enjoy!


The study of created kinds is an exciting area of research, and our hope is to help encourage others to get involved. Whether studying the duck-goose kind, elephant-mammoth kind, camel-llama kind, apple-pear kind, or others, the field of baraminology is a great place for biologists, botanists, geneticists, and paleontologists (for extinct kinds) to get immersed in creation research.
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?



Well, I don't know how much more simple it has to be.
Read it again. My follow-up too, should be good. The dogs know. lol.

If you can't understand it - what more can I say? :shrug:
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I'm not talking about our physical existence. I'm talking about the universe. It doesn't matter how it began. Right now, that's where it stands.

So I gather, you're not an evolutionist?

Evolution was not the issue concerning the hypothetical beginnings of the universe and or physical existence, It is confusing that you are associating evolution with the question of beginnings of the universe.

I am scientist, and the science of evolution has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.

Any comparison between Genesis and science is highly interpretive and anecdotal.
 
Top