Dinasaurs & such

Gene said,"All that is necessary is to consider the days as being symbolic of long ages and to realize that these long ages are not presented in the literal order they came in." "But unfortunately there are a great many who have hardened their hearts and minds into opposition to the findings of modern science."

Yeah right.
All you gotta do is say God did not MEAN days when He said days. And He did not mean first day, second day, third day, fourth day...when He SAID it.
No you see...God got all mixed up. What He really meant was millions of years instead of days.
And He didn't really mean plants and such came before the sunshine and moon and stars. What He meant to say was that first there was this super tiny but extremely dense ball of dirt that He exploded, which then made the stars which then made cosmic goo, which then made one celled things, which then made US!
But that's ok, see, because we got some "know-it-alls" who came along just in time to straighten everything out for us.
So now we can just cut that part out of our Bible because its really only a picture of what really happened and since we KNOW what happened, we don't need the silly pictures anymore!

See. all you gotta do is quit hardening your heart toward man's infallible wisdom. You shouldn't trust what God says now that we are saved from our ignorance by man's infallible wisdom.

See? Once you do that, the rest is easy.
Yeah.....RIGHT!
In His service;
Jim

 

Science does not disprove the Bible, and the Bible does not disprove Science. Science helps us to understand the Bible, and the Bible helps us to see the limitations of science. God has seen fit to bless us with both of them. Those who choose to accept only one of these blessings, regardless of which they choose, make fools of themselves.

 

And those who pass the word of God before the judgement bar of science have set up for themselves an idol to worship...

 

The bible has no conflict with sience, it does however have a conflict with the religion of evolution, yes I said it evolution is not a science but a religious belife, just like creation science is a religious belife, the only diffrence is one is created by man, and the other is created by Gods word.

for example:
the Bible: the earth is a sphere (Isaiha 40:22)
old science: the earth was flat
science now: the earth is a spere.

the bible: free float of earth in space (Job 26:7)
old science: earth sat on a large animal
science now:free float of earth in space

the bible: Creation is made up of invisible elements (atoms) (Hebrews 11:3)
old science: science was ignorant on the subject
science now: creation is made up of invisable elements (atoms)

the bible:light moves (Job 38:19, 20)
old science: light was fixed in place
new science:light moves

the bible : air has weight (Job 28:25)
old science: air was weightless
new science: air has weight

the bible:winds blow in cyclones(Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Old science: wind blew straight
new science: wind blows in cyclones

the bible: blood is the source of life, and health (Leviticus 17:11)
old science: sick people must be bled
new science: blood is the source of life, and health

the bible: the ocean floor contains deep valleys, and mountains(2 samuel 22:16, Jonah 2:6)
old science: the ocean floor was flat
new science: the ocean floor contains deep valleys, and mountains

the biblecean contains springs (Job 38:16)
old sciencecean was fed only by water
new science: ocean has springs

the bible: when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13)
old science: hands washed in still water, when they washed thier hands at all.
new science:when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water

remember the Bible was written 2,000-3,000 years ago, the Bible is supernatural in origin, and dosent conflict with science, but rather science tries to conflict with the Bible, by the means of evolution, and anything else that the Bible dosent say is true.

 

Yes, and fortunately, there are a lot of scientists who are now realizing that trying to make science fit into a pre-conceived theory is not "good science".

If we are to assume the Bible is accurate, then we should not be afraid of science--but we should be afraid of scientists who make theories based on evidentiary claims to fit their biased viewpoints.

A good example is Carl Sagan, who's religion was to kill God. I'm willing to assume that he is now a believer.

 

AMEN, ROOSTER, PREACH ON! (My statement comes from 25 years of experience in science and engineering.)

 

What if God created the earth with "dinosaur bones" in it already? Personally, I've no idea about dinosaurs, and it causes no questions in my faith or beleifs. Just another mystery to be revealed someday

 

here is something to consider, the word universe, broken down
"uni" meaning=one
"verse" meaning=spoken word
the "uni"-"verse" was created by the spoken word of God in one spoken word, the trees were made, in one spoken word the sky was made, in one spoken word, man was created, and life breathed into him by God. Oh and the same for dinosaurs, that is what I believe, and if I'm wrong, which I'm not, God wont hold it against me for believeing His word (the Bible), the bones theory doesn't quite wash out , for me, because bones are a result of death, and untill man sinned, there was no death.

 

I would not equate man with science. Science is the discovery of God's creation and the laws creation operates by according to how God put them in place. Gravity was part of creation; science discovered it.

It is the interpretation of creation using man's theories (which is not science), such as macro evolution, that sometimes conflicts with God's word.

True science based on objective data and fact will never conflict with truth or with God's word.

I agree there was no death before sin though I keep seeing Christians say there was. How could death and decay be in the world before sin when God's word plainly tells us that sin brought death into the world.

I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal 6 day creation. I think Ex. 20, where God refers to the 6 days of creation, supports this.

 

Marcia, do we actuly agree on something? Iguess there must be a first time for everything

 

Sadly, those who seek to deny current knowledge and blame it on bad science in order to reconcile their version of science and Biblical interpretation usually wind up making a hash of both somewhere along the line.

Except Isaiah never said the earth is a sphere. Circles aren't necessarily spheres!

Old legends of earth on a "large animal" are pre-scientific.

Funny, the word "atoms" isn't in Hebrews 11:3. I wonder why that is? Oh - the author was thinking of spiritual things, not material things!

??? When did anybody ever say anywhere that light was fixed in place?

Evolution doesn't conflict with the Bible unless you choose to stick to that interpretation.

A strange thing to do, since you have demonstrated the ability to blythly read into Isaiah the imaginary statement that the earth is a sphere!

The science behind evolution is sound and amply, volumnously demonstrated. It makes predictions that come true. It powerfully explains the patterns of living things as we find them.

The science behind an ancient creation is sound and amply, volunously demonstrated. It makes predictions that come true. It powerfully explains the patterns of geological formations and astronomical observations as we find them.

None of these sciences were devised to oppose the Bible; they were constructed by thousands and thousands of patient scientists who laid down fact after fact, precept upon precept, bringing us to the point where we can even begin to visit other worlds.

But I have faith that God's word will survive even those skeptics who think they have to force it to be in conflict with the findings of science.

 

Yeah, I guess we are agreeing! I've agreed with you before on other threads where I haven't posted and you didn't know it.

 

Is 40.22 -- the word is "chug"

chug (295b); from 02328 ; vault, horizon :--
circle(1), vault(m)(2).

Maybe circles are not necessarily spheres, but this seems to be describing the earth pretty closely. It's partly poetic, too, so the writer is not going for a scientific description. Nevertheless, it is not inaccurate.

As for Heb 11.3, though the point is about faith, it is talking about creation. Visible creation came about from nothing through God's power. This is creation ex-nihilo here.

How does the theory of evolution make predictions that come true?

I also believe that God's word explains the patterns of living things as we find them.

 

40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof...it may not use the word sphere, but that is the meaning of it, that the world is round(circular)

that was still the belife, and whether the earth sits on an animal or floats in space, seems to be scientific in nature, to me anyways.

11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. You know it may not use the word atom, but the description sounds like it to me, I could be wrong, but why try to disprove Gods word? I didn't just make this stuff up, I did see it on a website, click the site below:

Science comfims the Bible

It doesn't? were in the Bible does it say we came from apes? maybe I over looked that chapter

Kind of an odd statement to say from someone who belives: in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal 6 day creation. I think Ex. 20, where God refers to the 6 days of creation, supports this. and besides evolution has no real basis, it is allways contradictiong itself, unlike the Bible.

don't tell me you believe in space alliens too

its the other way around in my book, to prove science, it should be in-line with Gods word.

Marcia, I thought it was too Good to be true, or are you just trying to yank my chain?

 

No, Rooster, I'm not yanking anyone's chain. When I'm kidding, it's clear. I don't post stuff that I don't believe and on this topic, I don't kid around.

One thing you can be sure of, I don't post things to fool people or to make them think I'm believing something I don't. I'm not that kind of person.

 

Isn't there a difference between "the fact of evolution" and "the theory of evolution"?

 

That depends on whether or not you have yet evolved from being a monkey to being a man . If you are still a monkey, evolution is just a theory . If, on the other hand, you HAVE evolved to being a man, evolution is a fact .

 

The only fact about evolution is that it is science-fiction.

 

Dr. Kent Hovind is an excellent source for this topic.

Rufus

 

Of course its not inaccurate. I'm glad to see you retract the false idea that the Bible definately claims the earth is a sphere, however.

Exactly so. I'm glad to see you retract the idea that the Bible predicted atoms.

An excellent question. One kind of prediction is that when evolution states species a descended from species b, there must be an intermediate form between them. And sure enough, many intermediate fossils have been found.

Another kind of prediction is that a valid "tree of life" exists and will be verifiable by not only the fossil evidence based on the forms of the bones but by the chemical evidence based on the proteins and how THEY show ancestral relationships. Guess what - they DO agree!

And then along comes the genetic analysis. It agrees as well!