Originally posted by DoctorScribblesGENESIS 2:7 was the way that GOD formed the body of man. GOD has the power and the thought to do such things. The science of DNA was created by GOD. GOD has allowed man to understand and put together some of what HE has created. How many of the members of the science community that believe in GOD. There are many that do believe in GOD. What they discover or gain understanding about is used by unbelievers to dispute what GOD has said or done.
Well, you tell me.
You say that "I believe that every word is to be taken as it is written/literrally."
The term 'day' was written by a human author to convey a meaning to a human reader. Let us take it as it is written and consider what humans mean when they use the term. It denotes either the period between sunrises or the amount of tim ...[text shortened]... ganisms to evolve respirating lungs to consume molecules of air which fuels their persistence"?
Those that accept THE WORD OF GOD as literal have acceptted THE WORD as true and final. GOD is allowing man to discover and understand what HE has done and said, to bring mankind to believe in HIM. GOD has given more and more proof of HIS exsistance. There are those that come to believe in HIM, as well as those that refuse.
1 edit
Originally posted by blindfaith101Then your beef should be with those unbelievers and not with the scientists or their scientific theories. If you find that people misapply the theory of evolution, you do not have cause to say that evolution must be incorrect!
How many of the members of the science community that believe in GOD. There are many that do believe in GOD. What they discover or gain understanding about is used by unbelievers to dispute what GOD has said or done.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis week's Serious Question: Suppose that the observations of science were in accord with the Bible's 5000 year threshold. Suppose that cosmologists' theory of the Big Bang, independent of the Bible, predicted that it happened precisely at the same time that Genesis says God created the heavens and the earth. Would you be more or less amenable to accepting the cosmologists' theory as a physical explanation for God's interface with our universe? Is your primary obstacle to accepting the Big Bang model the fact that cosomologists say that it occurred billions of years ago rather than 5000?
It seems to me that a major component of the tension between Bible literalists and modern biology, cosmology, geology and to some degree just about every natural science, in addition to several social sciences such as archaeology and anthropology, is the issue of time.
Cosmologists say the universe is billions of years old.
Geologists say that th ...[text shortened]... g model the fact that cosomologists say that it occurred billions of years ago rather than 5000?
I am always amenable to hard science. I have a question mark when soft science (using assumptions I might not agree with) produces conclusions contrary to the Bible.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy do you and others limit what GOD can do or has done. You seem to be trying to make man a independant thought or being. You and others seem to think that Life begins and ends with mankind. There are those that seem unable, to get by that same question that have stumped even the angels. What is man,that you.........PSALMS 8:3-8, HEBREWS 2:5-9
Don't you think there is maybe the possibility people who think
the earth is only a few thou old are among the most paranoid
people on the planet? To look at, say, the Grand Canyon, and
come to the conclusion God made all this stuff complete with
fossils just to confuse mankind into thinking the universe is
billions of years old but of course this in ...[text shortened]...
People like that are spiritually dead inside, no more use to the world
than burrs on a cactus.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat is your understanding of the theroy of evolution?
Then your beef should be with those unbelievers and not with the scientists or their scientific theories. If you find that people misapply the theory of evolution, you do not have cause to say that evolution must be incorrect!
Originally posted by sonhouseThis week's logical fallacy is called "begging the question" or petitio principii.
Don't you think there is maybe the possibility people who think
the earth is only a few thou old are among the most paranoid
people on the planet? To look at, say, the Grand Canyon, and
come to the conclusion God made all this stuff complete with
fossils just to confuse mankind into thinking the universe is
billions of years old but of course this in ...[text shortened]...
People like that are spiritually dead inside, no more use to the world
than burrs on a cactus.
You are taking for granted the very thing being questioned in this thread.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm still making up my mind on that one... It is possible that God created a mature universe which is busy expanding and it is being extrapolated too far into the past to the big bang. I am not however closed to the possibility.
Do you believe that the Big Bang occurred, and when do you think it did?
6 edits
Originally posted by blindfaith101I don't have a biologist's understanding of it, for I have never studied it scientifically. My understanding of it derives primarily from popular science literature. I understand the core principle to hold that natural selection, which has been observed to occur in the wild and in the laboratory, is the explanatory phenomenon that accounts for the variety of species and biological forms that we observe, and that the DNA molecule and in particular mutations of it during the reproductive process, is the biological mechanism leveraged by natural selection to select for better biological features in future generations of life.
What is your understanding of the theroy of evolution?
I do, however, have an information scientist's expert view of it, having spent a considerable amount of fruitful research effort on developing what mathematicians and computer scientists know as evolutionary algorithms and genetic algorithms, which are abstractly based on the principles of the informational mechanics of biological evolution. In those abstract settings, I have witnessed first hand evolution working wonders -- and I was the intelligent designer. The fact that my systems evolved themselves according to my design goals did not detract from the intelligence or value of my design.
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseTo return to my original question, is the fact that cosmologists say it happened billions of years ago, rather than thousands, the primary obstacle to your accepting the Big Band model as accurate? Would you have already accepted it if the cosmologists said it happened 6000 years and six days ago?
I'm offended!!! You said the B-word!!!!
😛
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesUsing their currently scarce observations, I'd say they have the model about as accurate as one can get it. (Billions of years) It might just never have happened if they were preempted by the creation of a mature universe.
To return to my original question, is the fact that cosmologists say it happened billions of years ago, rather than thousands, the primary obstacle to your accepting the Big Band model as accurate?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSorry. Missed the edits. To answer your questions, yes.
To return to my original question, is the fact that cosmologists say it happened billions of years ago, rather than thousands, the primary obstacle to your accepting the Big Band model as accurate? Would you have already accepted it if the cosmologists said it happened 6000 years and six days ago?