Does the Bible Contradict Science?

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Administrator2, Jan 2, 2002.

  1. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    GARPIER
    Which is more important to the study of creation, the Bible or science? For many of you this is a no brainer. But others may want to substitute the wisdom of finite man for the Word of our infinite God.

    Most would agree that science has changed through the years as we (humans) have made newer discoveries. On the other hand the Bible has not changed one bit over the years and continues to be our guide for faith and practice.

    Some of us take the Bible literally( as God intended it) while other claim it is either the work of mere men or it was given by God who did not intend for us to take all of it literally. Others might claim that men have corrupted it over the years and therefore we either don't have the Word of God today or we can't be certain which part is and which part isn't the Scriptures.(This latter view denies the doctrine of Preservation as declared by Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:18 and Matthew 24:35)

    Part of the problem comes when some teach God either created an Old earth or used evolution to get us where we are and then claim that God in His majesty did one of these two things. Then they turn around and say that Genesis is either unreliable, or the work of men from a long past age or culture or it is to be taken allegorically.
    Yet these same individuals will use other Scriptures to suit there own views and not see that there is a conflict of interests with their use of Scripture.

    It's either all of God's Word or none of it. To try to take a middle ground is inconsistent.

    Some of these individuals will say that God could have created any way He chose. I agree with that. But if He had chosen to create some other way He would not have lied about it or deceived us by giving us Genesis 1 and expecting us to discover "the gap" between verse one and two. This is opposed by Exodus 20:11 and Hebrews11:3. It also violates Genesis 1:31 which states that everything was very good. How can God make this statement at the end of the sixth day of creation if those days represent ages which were filled with death and destruction. It also violates Romans 5:12 which tells us that there was no death until the sin of Adam.

    The world wide flood of Noah’s day will more than account for the "evidence " used by evolutionists to show a very old age to the earth. What I am trying to say is the Bible has the answers we are looking for if we would just choose to believe it.


    HELEN
    I agree with everything you said, first of all!

    But allow me to add a little to it.

    We were given dominion over the earth. That, to me, implies "Get to know it, folks." That would be science. So, from the top down, if you will, I think we have a mandate to 'get to know it.' Ideally, every scientist would know the Lord and would look to guidance from Him about what to do with each bit of new knowledge...

    From the bottom up, if you will, or from the view of men, I will present actual real science because I want people who are confused by so much to know that they CAN trust both God and His Word -- and that they can trust their own reading of His Word. After all, if fishermen could get it...grin...

    Also, because we live in a world riddled by decay due to our sin, I think God has given us some science to allow us to alleviate a good part of the suffering. I am grateful for that. Knowing, for instance, that certain diseases are simply reactions to not enough vitamins or iron. That's a biggie. Knowing that germs cause diseases (despite the howls of laughter and derision from the 'mainstream science' at the time!) has helped all of us enormously.

    I think of one other thing as well -- I am convinced that God has given us, in the Bible, the parameters of scientific truth so that we will know which areas will yield true and reliable knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific text, but it is certainly a scientific guide, and I think creationists who are in science appreciate that.

    The basic argument over evolution and creation isn't about whether man and ape had a common ancestor, really, or whether the Big Bang happened or anything else. These are sort of like symptoms of the much deeper point of contention, which is "Did God communicate clearly in Genesis to tell us what actually happened?" And this narrows down to "Is God really there? Did He really do this?"

    And so we present fact after fact and evidence after evidence that natural law, as we know it, is totally incapable of bringing about this universe, this world, all this life. Or us. And we present everything we can to show that only God could have done what we see.

    And, like Romans 1 says, there are those who consistently and consciously suppress the truth and favor a lie. I remember doing it myself. At least for awhile.

    And then I read one page, one magazine, one book too many -- about science -- and I knew that I had to come to terms with this. So, you see, it was science that taught me to trust God, actually, in a way distinct from my own personal salvation. I know I'm not the norm, but if there are others out there like me, then I'll do what I can. I'll try to do what was done for me.

    For a few of us, science itself is a hook God uses to draw us in or just draw us closer.

    So in my posts here I will try to present material both for general edification and also to help people know God is totally trustworthy for EVERYTHING. In the world we are coming into, that may be more important than ever.

    But, always, for those of you who have that wonderful faith from the get go, I guess all this must seem pretty silly. I was raised in a non-Christian home, though, and one of the things my Dad used to tell us instead of "get your elbows of the table," was "If there is anything I want you kids to learn in life it's how to think and how to laugh."

    I think I can do the former. I know I can do the latter! And both of these were used by the Lord to help me come to Him and then to get to know Him better.

    One more thing -- about the Flood. The view most espoused by Christians today says that Noah's Flood laid down most of the geological strata. I don't think that is right. In fact, I don't think the Flood was responsible for most of it. Yes, there was a worldwide Flood and Yes the story of Noah is literally true. But if you look at the tower of Babel incident, the days of Peleg when the earth itself 'was divided,' Psalm 18 with its reference to massive volcanism, or the devastation of Sodom and Gormorrah, the sun 'standing still' at the time of Joshua or going back on the steps later. And more. References like these, or to hills and mountains 'skipping' like lambs and rams are, I think, references to massive geological cataclysms that followed the Flood.

    Think about it. The fountains of the deep all explode upwards with, if parallel memories from other cultures serve, scalding waters. These would have immediately evaporated and started the massive forty-day rain (no, I don't think the rain was from the vapor canopy, but yes I think there was a vapor canopy and I think the heat from the initial flood waters upset the atmospheric balance so much it was destroyed). But what happened to the crust of the earth with that incredible volume of water suddenly released? It would take some time to settle down, and massive earthquakes and volcanism would be expected. The ice age Job records would certainly be part of the later devastation.

    And I think each of these left its mark on the geologic record. I think there were astroid hits, and maybe several quite large ones at once, possible causing somewhat of an axis tilt (Joshua's long day, the sun going back on the steps) which was, by the way, extensively documented by George Dodwell, head astronomer in South Australia for many years. His material is currently being made ready for publishing -- it has been due out for some time but there have been problems getting the illustrations those preparing it want. It should be out in 2002.

    At any rate, yes there was a Flood. But understand that attributing most or all of the geologic strata to it is man's interpretation of the event. But the Flood happened. The parameter given by the Bible is also that there is evidence of later massive catastrophes which decimated whole regions at a time (but not the whole world at once). So which part of the geological strata belongs where is valid scientific research within the parameters given by the Bible.

    In that sense, then, to get back to the topic of your title, creation science is highly dependent on the Bible for those correct parameters.


    GARPIER
    Helen, I agree with most of what you say. As a matter of fact I don't think there is anything you said which I can disagree with by showing some other argument. I would agree that God uses different methods to "hook" people with. Since He knows the hearts and minds of all mankind, He knows what will work wiht each individual.

    I am not discounting the place that science has in showing the truth of creation. What I am saying is that ultimately, belief in God as Creator must be based on faith and "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Obviously many people have been led to the truth of the Bible after having seen the fallacy that is evolution. For some this was before their salvation and for others after it. But either way the scientific evidence has led these individuals (yourself included) to the knowledge that the Bible is indeed the Word of God.

    Your comments on geology as relates to the flood and the period after are very interesting. I don't think I have ever seen this view presented before. This is an area that would be interesting to robe if possible. I do have some questions which you may or may not have answers or theories for. Do you think the Grand Canyon was carved as a result of the Flood waters receding or perhaps as part of the possible post flood catastrophes? One thing I have always been puzzled by are the woolly mammoths. Since we do not have any of this kind around today, it would seem they are preflood animals. If so, how did they become encased in ice ( which probably did't appear until after the flood.) I have heard Hovind's theory on this, but it also leaves questions unanswered. If as you suggest, there were post flood events that caused fossilization to take place, would these fossils account for all, some or most of the fossils we have today? Do you believe most dinosaur remains are preflood or post flood?

    There are other questions which I have but don't have the time now to go into them. Again I am not disputing anything you have said, I am just curious about some of these questions and am looking to learn from some one who might have possible answers.


    HELEN
    Helen, I agree with most of what you say. As a matter of fact I don't think there is anything you said which I can disagree with by showing some other argument. I would agree that God uses different methods to "hook" people with. Since He knows the hearts and minds of all mankind, He knows what will work with each individual.

    I have been truly amazed by the means by which God has called some to Him. So I guess we all do what we ought where we are, paying attention to Him rather than directions from others about what is 'best', right? I remember when my oldest son was going to a Christian college and he called me mid-semester of his freshman year and asked, "Mom, you said that no matter what field of work we ended up in, we would be missionaries, right?" I told him yes, and what was the problem. The problem was that he was being made to feel like a second class citizen there because he was not actively training for a mission field but was far more interested in math and physics! He transferred out at the end of the year, graduated from a university later, and today is team leader for a research and development team (and he is only 28 today!) for a computer firm. And his Christian influence in that area is as profound as any jungle missionary's could be! Yes, God uses everything. In the long run, though, it is the Bible which is His complete word and science, and man's knowledge, have barely scratched the surface of the 'word written in creation.' But, just as science has been so badly abused, so has the Bible -- so again, we use everything we have.

    .
    Your comments on geology as relates to the flood and the period after are very interesting. I don't think I have ever seen this view presented before. This is an area that would be interesting to robe if possible. I do have some questions which you may or may not have answers or theories for. Do you think the Grand Canyon was carved as a result of the Flood waters receding or perhaps as part of the possible post flood catastrophes?

    Personally I do not think so, no. I think the Grand Canyon was carved catastrophically by a later flood episode. If you look at a map, you will see Yellowstone far to the north -- still bubbling away. South of that is the area where the great Inland Sea once was -- all that is left of this now is Salt Lake. Then there is an upwarping, and the Grand Canyon piercing that. We saw at Mt. St. Helens what a mud dam breach would do -- it carved Engineer's Canyon in a few hours. That was a small one. If earth movement or rapidly melting glaciers from even further north, or activity by Yellowstone -- or any combination of the three -- performed anything like the dam breach where the Inland Sea was concerned, then the rushing waters would have been more than sufficient to carve Grand Canyon. The Colorado River flowing through it is then what is left, not what caused it.

    The reason I don't think it was flood or immediately post flood is because there is a layer of wind-blown sand in the strata. There are also animal footprints. That is really hard to come up with during a flood. But if there was another catastrophe years later, that would explain everything easily.


    One thing I have always been puzzled by are the woolly mammoths. Since we do not have any of this kind around today, it would seem they are preflood animals. If so, how did they become encased in ice ( which probably didn't appear until after the flood.)

    In Job 38:29-30 we have reference to the Ice Age which occurred after the Flood of Noah. The mammoths were definitely around for a long time after the Flood, and were clearly hunted by some for food. The encasing of ice means there was a rapid freeze over Europe and northern Asia at one point. Very few things could have caused this. One of them is a meteorite hit or asteroid hit (or hits) which caused a tilting of the earth on its axis. We are the only planet which has a non-captured moon which is not orbiting along the equatorial plane -- why? We have stories out of the South Pacific about 'how the moon got a dirty face' -- the maria, or large dark spots are very large meteorite craters which cracked the surface of the moon and caused lava flow to cover the crater floors.

    If the people in the South Pacific SAW this happen, then the same onslaught could have been what we see in the craters in the Western Hemisphere. The north part of the Western Hemisphere. Those were pretty large hits and could have done some enormous damage, including rampant resulting volcanism, earth movement, and even axis tilt. The ash from both the meteorites and the volcanoes along with a possible axis tilt would have caused a very fast freeze in parts of the earth, and this is what we MAY be seeing where the mammoths are concerned.

    At any rate, they were not pre-Flood exclusively, but came down through on the Ark of Noah. There have been a lot of extinctions, by the way, since Noah, and these large critters were one of a number of them.


    I have heard Hovind's theory on this, but it also leaves questions unanswered. If as you suggest, there were post flood events that caused fossilization to take place, would these fossils account for all, some or most of the fossils we have today?

    I think most, yes. I don't think the Flood did much more than pre-Cambrian or maybe part way through the Cambrian. The Flood waters were scalding hot coming out of the earth, before they cycled into rain, and burned people, plants, and animals alike (this is corroborated by extra-biblical legends, by the way). Those that did not burn would have rotted in the warm waters rather quickly. Fossilization just is not likely in these situations.
    However the settling of the crust -- the upwarps and resultant land slides, the catastrophes from other things -- these, happening time after time for several hundred years after the Flood, would have easily accounted for what we see in the geologic strata, including the clear evidence of catastrophes -- plural -- that we see there.


    Do you believe most dinosaur remains are preflood or post flood?

    Post flood, without a doubt. How on earth would they have laid eggs and tended nests DURING a flood? We also have clear historic records of dinosaurs living contemporaneously with man in post-Flood societies. These were the dragons of China, the monsters of the deep which terrified sailors for so many years, etc.

    This idea -- these ideas -- are not new with me by any means. You will find a couple of other presentations at these links. Agree with them or not, they do cause one to think!
    http://www.ldolphin.org/genages.html -- a long essay, but Bernard Northrup is a professor of Greek and Hebrew as well of as the Old Testament. He is also a personal friend now and this particular essay analyzes the various models before he presents his own at the bottom. It is worth the read -- you'll really get educated by someone who knows his stuff!

    Barry Setterfield also has a multi-catastrophe model similar to Northrup’s, with some slight differences. His book “Creation and Catastrophe” is undergoing a re-write right now and will be webbed soon at www.setterfield.org.

    I believe Robert Gentet has another model, but I don't know where to access it. At any rate, there are quite a few people who are professionals in geology, Old Testament, etc., who are strong conservative 'fundie' Christians who are convinced that both the Bible and geology are telling us a different story than the classic Flood model where that one Flood did 'everything.' All three men above are young earth creationists, by the way, so this is all in the young earth timeframe.

    Hope it helps.

    [ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...