PDA

View Full Version : New Science Forum



Richard Amiel McGough
05-10-2010, 09:17 PM
We live in the Scientific age. Scripture was written thousands of years ago in a pre-scientific age. This presents many challenges. For example, a literal reading of Genesis 1 can lead one to think the earth was created somewhere around 6,000 years ago. This contradicts the vast array of confirmed knowledge we have learned from Science. Likewise, the "raqia" (dome, firmament) of Genesis 1 reflects an ancient three-tiered view of the cosmos. How can we reconcile this with our modern knowledge of how the real world is configured?

There are many fascinating questions. Don't be shy! Jump right in.

Richard

alec cotton
08-02-2010, 10:56 AM
I wonder if I am destined to be always on the other end. I have always been opposed to the notion that Adam was the first man on earth. Adam was a special creation . He lived in a literal location. He had children whose names are on record. Hatches , matches and dispatches are all recorded. On the other hand ,the fruit of knowledge of good and evil is an obvious metaphor. He was unique and was created for a specific purpose. The creation account agrees with the observable facts of geology. The Darwin theory is such utter bunkum that if it had been on any other subject it would have been rejected without question. It was a special gift to the unbeliever and the God hater. They pounced on it with utmost enthusiasm. Ever since then they have been forced to adjust and tinker and shore up and modify. The creation account states that life began in the water. The account then goes on to say about land animals and birds and plants. The fossil record shows that it was so. Now comes the split. Evolutionists split their differences trying to prove that everything evolved by accident. About forty years ago I was convinced that the great geological changes had been brought about by periodic cataclysmic impacts of asteroids or meteors. Anyone who subscribed to that notion at that time was called a catastrophist with a curled lip and a sneer. The evidence for such events is now overwhelming . Every time we examine the end of one geological period and the beginning of another , the patern is the same. Vast numbers of animals and plants are extinguished and new species appear . That can be observed from the graptolite to the present animal kingdom. Now what makes it so awkward for the evolutionist is the fact that the animals are all perfectly designed for a specific purpose. 'Ask the beasts of the field and they will tell you of me'the observable fact that they are designed demands the conclusion that there is a designer. There is only one possible conclusion . GOD IS.

Alec

Richard Amiel McGough
08-03-2010, 12:52 PM
I wonder if I am destined to be always on the other end. I have always been opposed to the notion that Adam was the first man on earth. Adam was a special creation . He lived in a literal location. He had children whose names are on record. Hatches , matches and dispatches are all recorded. On the other hand ,the fruit of knowledge of good and evil is an obvious metaphor. He was unique and was created for a specific purpose.

Hi Alec! :yo:

You are suggesting a rather confusing mix of history and metaphor.

Genesis 2-3 is presented as a single story. It has a talking snake, one tree that imparts knowledge and another that gives life, and a woman made from the rib of a man. You accept some of this as "literal" and some as "metaphor." Why the inconsistency? Why not simply accept it all as a metaphor? It doesn't make it any less true - unless you think that the metaphorical tree of knowledge is "false" because it is a metaphor.


The creation account agrees with the observable facts of geology.
I don't understand what you mean. The observable facts of history indicate that the earth is about 4 billion years old. I didn't get that from reading Genesis 1.

But I do understand your point that the basic sequence of water --> land --> humans in Genesis is correct. I'll discuss that more later.


The Darwin theory is such utter bunkum that if it had been on any other subject it would have been rejected without question.

Again, I don't know what you are talking about. I agree that the origin of life from non-organic material remains unexplained, but that's not "Darwin's Theory." Darwin's theory is about the origin of species from a common ancestor. His theory has been confirmed by many witnesses and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists today. Read Francis Collins' book called "The Language of God" - he is a Christian who believes in common descent. The comparison of the genomes of many creatures pretty much proves it.



It was a special gift to the unbeliever and the God hater. They pounced on it with utmost enthusiasm.

Where did you get the idea that Darwin hated God? Can you provide any documentation for that?

But yes, ,many atheists have pounced on evolution as proof for their position. But they are wrong, as are the Christians who oppose them by denying the scientific reality of evolution.

The real way to oppose atheists is to show the failure of their material reductionist philosophy. They can not explain meaning or consciousness, so their philosophy fails. If you oppose science based on logic and facts you will lose 100% of the time. Guaranteed.



Ever since then they have been forced to adjust and tinker and shore up and modify.

Scientific theories grow and correct themselves. That is their strength, not their weakness.

Dogmatic opinions held by religious dictators are the only things that never change ... until they are forced to change by the irresistible truth (e.g. Galileo, Copernicus, etc..)

I'll follow up on the rest of your points after lunch

Great chatting,

Richard

alec cotton
08-04-2010, 01:33 PM
Hello Richard
This looks like it is going to be a long and boring post, but I can see no alternative but to dot every I and cross every T . I like to keep my posts as brief as possible so as not to weary anyone. You said Why not accept it all as a metaphor ?, it doesn't make it any les true. If I accept it ALL as a metaphor then it IS less true. Adam was not a metaphor . He was a real man. He was not one of the men on earth at that time. He was created for a specific purpose. God then took a literal rib out of Adam and made a literal woman. There was no need whatsoever for God to go through all this procedure. He could have just as easily formed them both at the same time. This account is recorded for our benefit. This next statament I found confusing : 'Unless you think that the tree of knowlede is false because it is a metaphor.' I was unaware of the notion that I had given the impression that a metaphor is untrue because it is a metaphor. Jesus said 'I am the door' (metaphor)
'He who drinks my blood and eats my flesh' (metaphor) Drink deep of the wells of salvation ( metaphor) Truth undiminished. The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is an obvious metaphor. Throughout the bible 'fruit ' is invariably used to indicate consequence ,result,or outcome. In fact in modern day usage it has the same connotation The result of knowledge of good and evil is a conscience. I thought that that was screamingly obvious. It leaves no room for doubt that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a metaphor. Eden was a geographical location. These scenes were choreographed by god for our benefit .

I said that the creation account agrees with the observable facts of geology. To which you replied
'I don't know what you mean. The observable facts of history indicate that the earth is about 4 billion years old. .I didn't get that from genesis 1.

In the beginning ,the earth was without shape and void. A mass of gas, God projected a mental image into the formless mass and the formless mass took upon itself the shape of the projected image. I assume it was in the blackness of space because darkness was over the face of the deep. ' God caused it to be captured in the orbit of a star. (let their be light) he caused a satellite to be caught in the orbit of the earth to serve several more purposes . ( the moon).. These events were recorded in language which can easily be understood by a child. The earth was covered in water .
Life began in the water. It did not evolve. Cataclysmic events took place periodically. The fossil record shows that distinctly At the end of each geologic period there is an abrupt and observable change in flora and fauna. There is not the faintest hint of one species evolving into another The old system was wiped out an replaced by another. All the plants and all the animals were designed to fit into a particular environment. This is what the bible calls the hand of God. The pseudo scientists call it nature. I set very little store by the assumptions made by 'modern' scientists. I will give you one or two examples. In the past i have studied geology in the field and had my hands on many fossils . From these I drew conclusions which were opposite to the accepted theories. . For instance , There was a time when I found a good source of septarian nodules. I cut them up ,ground them up and dissolved some in acid. . My conclusion was opposite to the accepted explanation. The textbooks said that these nodules were originally balls of clay washed up on an ancient beach. They dried and cracked in the sun . After a time they were submerged in the surrounding mud and eventually the cracks were filled with calcium. Observation showed me that that was not the case.
In septarian nodules , the cracks (although now filled with calcite) are always thickest in the centre and taper to almost nothing at the outer limits. With a ball of clay , the opposite is true . The cracks are always widest on the surface and taper to the centre. There is more but that will do for now. The nodules were blobs of crude oil on a beach millions of years ago. There was a huge amount of volcanic ash which partially mixed with the oil. The ash was eventually covered and became shale. The nodes under pressure formed gas in the middle. . The gas cracked the nodule and the subsequent cracks were filled with calcium. I was observing some euglena under the microscope . The text book said that euglena are protozoans . They swim by means of a flagellum . . While I was watching this one , its whip fell off and it swam off without it . It swims by means of an undulating motion. It has a red eye spot and the 'authorities ' will assure you that this is a primitive eye and that all eyes evolved like this . Poppycock!. For any eye to be of any use at all it must be a complete and functional eye. Eyes are designed by God. On the subject of eyes : When I was studying a wasp I discovered three simple eyes . Compared to the compound eyes they are minute. I asked around and found that they are called occeli. Tonight for the sake of clarity in this post I took one out and measured it . It is about a quarter of a millimetre in diameter. Bi convex and pale amber. To prove that it is a lens I have in the past taken a photograph of the eye of a needle through the occelum. The dozy Darwin theory is ' the theory of evolution by the selection of the species'. They ignore the occeli because it will not and does not fit.. You said that scientific theories grow and correct themselves that is their strength. They should have been right in the first place and they would need no correction. If science is based on observation it does not stand in need of correction . It should be lihe the differential back axle on a motor car. I believe it was invented by a woman( Rose will like that)It was right first time . Just before I go I will tell you something I read in the daily paper . Good news and bad news .The good news is that scientists have proved that men have bigger brains than women. The bad news is that they don't use them.
Alec

Clifford
08-08-2010, 08:39 PM
Hi Alec! :yo:

You are suggesting a rather confusing mix of history and metaphor.

Genesis 2-3 is presented as a single story. It has a talking snake, one tree that imparts knowledge and another that gives life, and a woman made from the rib of a man. You accept some of this as "literal" and some as "metaphor." Why the inconsistency? Why not simply accept it all as a metaphor? It doesn't make it any less true - unless you think that the metaphorical tree of knowledge is "false" because it is a metaphor.


I don't understand what you mean. The observable facts of history indicate that the earth is about 4 billion years old. I didn't get that from reading Genesis 1.

But I do understand your point that the basic sequence of water --> land --> humans in Genesis is correct. I'll discuss that more later.


Again, I don't know what you are talking about. I agree that the origin of life from non-organic material remains unexplained, but that's not "Darwin's Theory." Darwin's theory is about the origin of species from a common ancestor. His theory has been confirmed by many witnesses and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists today. Read Francis Collins' book called "The Language of God" - he is a Christian who believes in common descent. The comparison of the genomes of many creatures pretty much proves it.


Where did you get the idea that Darwin hated God? Can you provide any documentation for that?

But yes, ,many atheists have pounced on evolution as proof for their position. But they are wrong, as are the Christians who oppose them by denying the scientific reality of evolution.

The real way to oppose atheists is to show the failure of their material reductionist philosophy. They can not explain meaning or consciousness, so their philosophy fails. If you oppose science based on logic and facts you will lose 100% of the time. Guaranteed.


Scientific theories grow and correct themselves. That is their strength, not their weakness.

Dogmatic opinions held by religious dictators are the only things that never change ... until they are forced to change by the irresistible truth (e.g. Galileo, Copernicus, etc..)

I'll follow up on the rest of your points after lunch

Great chatting,

Richard

Hi Richard,

I agree that we can't approach the Bible as a book of science. It does not claim to be so and we should not use it as such. I personally believe the earth to be billions of years old.

The main point in your post that I wanted to address is when you mentioned the "scientific reality of evolution." Evolution is far from proven. For sure species adapt and change and we can observe that today. But that is a far cry from one species changing into another. One major problem I see with evolution is why does the fossil record not show any transitional forms. You would think if species were evolving into different species you would see much more support in the fossil record. Also the fossil record mainly shows sudden extinctions and not a slow evolution of life forms.

All the best,

Clifford