Does the Bible say to reject science?

[outhouse]

It all boils down to faith....and what a person "wants" to believe.

No its all about what a person wants to deny.

I don't deny fact.

I don't deny the lessons and parables in the bible.


But you because of religious belief, deny fact you don't understand.

They have no more "proof" for evolution than I do for a Creator

Factually not true.

Evolution is backed by a mountain of facts, and taught in every university around the world as higher education in biology.

Creation has not a single piece of evidence let alone a single fact, and is outlawed in children's classes so that we don't poison their mind to reality.

Your a great example of the danger of faith, as you are flat refusing academia due to personal religious bias.

Your no one to talk down to the credible education and knowledge taught by this worlds brightest minds.

 

[outhouse]

What I see is a desperate attempt to get rid of God.

What you fail to understand, and I will call it a lack of education here.

Theist, people who are very religious, are the ones who are creating these scientific theories, you deny from lack of education.

 

[Domenic]

In looking at these passages, I think we need to keep in mind that science as we know it didn't exist when the Bible was written. It makes me wonder what the word they are translating as "science" is, because it seems like a modernization to translate something written in a pre-scientific world to the word "science."

Beyond that, I'm not particularly good at Bible interpretation. The syntax of the text is not something I'm used to... which is odd because I read equally arcane syntax in more esoteric works.

That is not true. Many things were done. They have found batteries in Egypt dating back more than 2,000 years. Mathematics gave us the Zero, Trig, Algebra. They figured out the earth was round. The romans made the water clock. The arch, Roman Cement. Greek fire. The science of working steel. Plywood used in roman shields. The did a lot of science. Yeah, also the wheel.

 

[outhouse]

. Many things were done.

And many things factually were not studied.

 

[Quintessence]

That is not true. Many things were done. They have found batteries in Egypt dating back more than 2,000 years. Mathematics gave us the Zero, Trig, Algebra. They figured out the earth was round. The romans made the water clock. The arch, Roman Cement. Greek fire. The science of working steel. Plywood used in roman shields. The did a lot of science. Yeah, also the wheel.

Keywords: SCIENCE AS WE KNOW IT. Modern science didn't come around until the Enlightenment, and in its rigorous form we know today during the 19th century and after. I'm not talking about the proto-science and pseudo-science that yes, obviously existed before modern science, nor am I talking about technology, which is much of what you're listing here.

 

[Domenic]

Outhouse,
You say there are many facts to prove evolution is true. I won't ask for the many...JUST ONE. You do have one don't you?

 

[Quintessence]

Outhouse,
You say there are many facts to prove evolution is true. I won't ask for the many...JUST ONE. You do have one don't you?

He doesn't need to. You'd be far better off getting that information from subject experts. Go to your local public library, and check out a non-fiction book on evolution. If you can tolerate his style, Richard Dawkins' books on evolution are fantastic. But you'd probably want to start off with something more generic and easy, like the chapter(s) on evolution in your typical college-level biology textbook. There are heaps and heaps of evidence supporting evolutionary theory... which is why it's a theory, not merely a hypothesis. It is by far the best scientific explanation we have for biodiversity, and much of biology makes little to no sense without it. Unfortunately, it's also often left out of basic education in biology, so people have all sorts of misconceptions about it. One of my colleagues does yearly surveys of incoming biology freshman at my University, and when I saw some of what students were saying, I had to ask him if it was real. The results were just that atrocious - and consistently so across the years he's been teaching - that I want very badly to disbelieve they exist. I have this peer reviewed booklet sitting on my desk about teaching evolution in schools. It's from the 1970s. It reads like it could have been written yesterday. Horrible.

 

[outhouse]

Outhouse,
You say there are many facts to prove evolution is true. I won't ask for the many...JUST ONE. You do have one don't you?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5


I could use this above, but instead I pick you. You are evidence of evolution, as you are not the same species that existed 500,000 years ago.

And factually the further in time we go back, the more primitive the species generally are.

 

[JayJayDee]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

I could use this above, but instead I pick you. You are evidence of evolution, as you are not the same species that existed 500,000 years ago.

And factually the further in time we go back, the more primitive the species generally are.

outhouse....you obviously gave that link as a support to the evolutionary argument, but on reading through it, it just confirms everything I said before. Using micro-evolution as its proof and going way beyond that in pure speculation does not "prove" anything. This is science fiction masquerading as science fact.

Especially the "Potential Falsifications" which one might gloss over after being dazzled by the rest of the jargon.

Like this one:

"Potential Falsification:
If modern observed rates of evolution were unable to account for the rates found in the fossil record, the theory of common descent would be extremely difficult to justify, to put it mildly. For example, Equus evolutionary rates during the late Cenozoic could be consistently found to be greater than 80,000 darwins. Given the observed rates in modern populations, a rate that high would be impossible to explain. Since the average rate of evolution in colonization events is ~400 darwins, even an average rate of 4000 darwins in the fossil record would constitute a robust falsification."

Or this:

"Potential Falsification:
If all known species were completely genetically isolated from one another, and there were no instances of hybrids, it would be very difficult to reasonably justify the postulation of millions upon millions of gradual speciation events in the past."

This is one of the poorest examples of evolutionary "proof" that I have seen and actually works against your theory being "fact" except in the eyes of science 'worshippers'.....sorry.

Look at this stated as a "Confirmation":

"Here I can do no better than to quote George C. Williams writing on this very issue:

"The question of evolutionary rate is indeed a serious theoretical challenge, but the reason is exactly opposite of that inspired by most people's intuitions. Organisms in general have not done nearly as much evolving as we should reasonably expect. Long-term rates of change, even in lineages of unusually rapid evolution, are almost always far slower than they theoretically could be." (Williams 1992, p. 128)"

This is a confirmation? !! Confirming that what is observed doesn't match the theory. Having to go against human "intuition" in order to accept it? What are you seeing in these kinds of articles? Obviously only what you want to see.

If you read this link without the evolutionary glasses on, you will see what is plainly stated. It is all pure speculation....science musing pretending to be science fact........not a proof in sight.

 

[outhouse]

You can twist facts all you want. It is typical and I expected as much. Its why I did not choose that.

Using micro-evolution

Micro evolution is evolution. It is a term often perverted by some theist who do not understand speciation is taken in small steps.

BUT I told you I did not choose that, I chose you as my proof.

You factually are not the same species that existed 500,000 years ago, this is fact.

but instead I pick you. You are evidence of evolution, as you are not the same species that existed 500,000 years ago.

 

[outhouse]

And factually the further in time we go back, the more primitive the species generally are.

 

[JayJayDee]

You can twist facts all you want. It is typical and I expected as much. Its why I did not choose that.

Micro evolution is evolution.

You can call it that if you want, but it in no way proves that all living things came from a single organism.

Provide the missing links (there has to be intermediate and transitional species for all of the evolutionary change that science claims took place) and we will have something to talk about. When you replace facts with speculation, you lose the science......the true science that requires the kind of evidence that all other branches of science requires to substantiate a position.

It is a term often perverted by some theist who do not understand speciation is taken in small steps.

Can you tell me, if there are no longer Neanderthals because we humans evolved into the more modern man and that Neanderthals evolved from chimpanzees....why are there still chimpanzees? Why are the primitive apes still here but Neanderthals aren't?

BUT I told you I did not choose that, I chose you as my proof.

I see no proof in my existence as having evolved at all. My body exhibits intelligent creation. You think that the human body with all its interactive systems is just an accident of the evolutionary process? You believe that this piece of magnificent engineering is the product of blind chance? Seriously?

The fact is, all those stooped and brutish primitive humans illustrated in the science textbooks that kids were given in schools are the product of imagination. There were no stooped, half-ape, half-man, primitive humans.

Scientists often portray the final “stages” of “human evolution” as a progression from Homohabilis to Homoerectus to “modern man,” Homosapiens. Two fossils found within walking distance of each other in Kenya, however, have now been interpreted as indicating that the two species Homohabilis and Homoerectus, thought to be human ancestors, lived at the same time. “Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homoerectus evolved from Homo habilis,” stated Meave Leakey, who was one of the authors of the report.

You factually are not the same species that existed 500,000 years ago, this is fact.

If you read articles and papers on speciation, one thing rings loud and clear. Species, regardless of their adaptations, remain within their "kinds" just as Genesis states. One "kind" never morphs into another "kind". This is what we observe with our own eyes in nature. Species are designed to perpetuate their "kind"....it is programmed into them. Adaptations are part of that design. Programming requires a programmer....ask any computer expert.

 

[metis]

You can call it that if you want, but it in no way proves that all living things came from a single organism.

Sorry, but I gotta be brief.

That all life may have emerged from one cell is only one hypothesis, and we are not ever likely to know whether it's accurate or not.

Provide the missing links (there has to be intermediate and transitional species for all of the evolutionary change that science claims took place) and we will have something to talk about. ..

All forms are transitional, including even you and I unless we the last humans on Earth.

Can you tell me, if there are no longer Neanderthals because we humans evolved into the more modern man and that Neanderthals evolved from chimpanzees....why are there still chimpanzees? Why are the primitive apes still here but Neanderthals aren't?

Neanderthals did not evolve from chimps. Chimps had their own evolutionary process and they still are most likely evolving.

I see no proof in my existence as having evolved at all.

You are ever-changing as all material things appear to be ever-changing. That's "evolution".

The fact is, all those stooped and brutish primitive humans illustrated in the science textbooks that kids were given in schools are the product of imagination. There were no stooped, half-ape, half-man, primitive humans.

Those were in the old books. The very first Neanderthal find was of an old man who had arthritis, and that was the model used until many more Neanderthals were found.

Scientists often portray the final “stages” of “human evolution” as a progression from Homohabilis to Homoerectus to “modern man,” Homosapiens. Two fossils found within walking distance of each other in Kenya, however, have now been interpreted as indicating that the two species Homohabilis and Homoerectus, thought to be human ancestors, lived at the same time. “Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homoerectus evolved from Homo habilis,” stated Meave Leakey, who was one of the authors of the report.

Just because a species may emerge from another species, that doesn't mean that the original species suddenly died out. Overlaps are not only common, they happen in most cases

If you read articles and papers on speciation, one thing rings loud and clear. Species, regardless of their adaptations, remain within their "kinds" just as Genesis states.

Not true, and as an anthropologist, I've read many, many sources on the issue of speciation.

 

[outhouse]

Provide the missing links

Every fossil that exist is a missing link.

I see no proof in my existence as having evolved at all.

Pick up a credible book on biology.

My body exhibits intelligent creation.

Perception based on ancient mythology.

Scientists often portray the final “stages” of “human evolution” as a progression from Homohabilis to Homoerectus to “modern man,” Homosapiens. Two fossils found within walking distance of each other in Kenya, however, have now been interpreted as indicating that the two species Homohabilis and Homoerectus, thought to be human ancestors, lived at the same time. “Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homoerectus evolved from Homo habilis,” stated Meave Leakey, who was one of the authors of the report.

I know the debate quite well thank you. Doesn't help you as these are all missing links to modern man.

And factually the further in time we go back, the more primitive the species generally are.



When will you provide the same criticism for undisputed science, as you do for the biblical mythology?

 

[JayJayDee]

That all life may have emerged from one cell is only one hypothesis, and we are not ever likely to know whether it's accurate or not.

True science is exact......theory is not, and can change from one "discovery" to the next.

All forms are transitional, including even you and I unless we the last humans on Earth.

Adaptation is not organic evolution. The changes are superficial at best. They facilitate camouflage or altered environment or diet. One species does not evolve into an unrelated life form. It can alter characteristics but remains true to type. Show me where this is not demonstrated in the examples of speciation provided by scientists. The fish remained fish. The flies remained flies......the experiments cannot take them further than that so they fill in the blanks with speculation. Best educated guess is not science.

Neanderthals did not evolve from chimps. Chimps had their own evolutionary process and they still are most likely evolving.

Was bouncing off outhouse's comments.

You are ever-changing as all material things appear to be ever-changing. That's "evolution".

The ability to adapt is not evolution as science wants to explain it. Macro-evolution is not an established fact and science knows it. Scientists just gets toey when people point to the gross lack of actual evidence. Micro doesn't not = macro just because they say so. How many times have they had to alter their tune to fit the latest find by someone?

Those were in the old books. The very first Neanderthal find was of an old man who had arthritis, and that was the model used until many more Neanderthals were found.

So a whole generation of kids was programmed on false evidence. My point exactly. What will be proven false next?

Just because a species may emerge from another species, that doesn't mean that the original species suddenly died out. Overlaps are not only common, they happen in most cases

Wouldn't that be because they are still the same "kinds"? Again, all it proves is adaptation.

Not true, and as an anthropologist, I've read many, many sources on the issue of speciation.

What sources might they be Métis? What does an evolutionist consider to be a credible source on speciation?.....one that agrees with their own view by any chance?

 

[outhouse]

Macro-evolution is not an established fact and science knows it.

Evolution Is fact, and all academics states this.


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[outhouse]

The following academies have endorsed this statement

Albanian Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
Australian Academy of Science
Austrian Academy of Sciences
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academia Chilena de Ciencias
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Académie des Sciences, France
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
The Academy of Athens, Greece
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Royal Irish Academy
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Mongolian Academy of Sciences
Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
Polish Academy of Sciences
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Singapore National Academy of Sciences
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society, UK
US National Academy of Sciences
Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
African Academy of Sciences
The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU)

 

[JayJayDee]

Every fossil that exist is a missing link.

I don't believe that. Fossils have not exactly supported a lot of evolutionary thinking....in fact they have altered the perceptions of some dramatically.

Pick up a credible book on biology.

Your definition of "credible" and mine might be a bit different.

Biology is a science that understands the workings of the human body in ways that might elude the average reader, but understanding the balances and interconnecting systems of the human organism does not make one immediately jump to the blind chance theory. Design is exhibited in every working of the body. Design needs a designer. When is that ever not the case?

If you have a computer....do you imagine it just formed itself so that you went out into the forest and found it under a bush? That is what you are saying to me by inferring that the living beings on this planet, including man, had no 'designer' and 'manufacturer'. They just made it up as they went along...no blueprint with the DNA, no design....all just a series of very beneficial co-incidences?

Mutations are beneficial in what percentage of cases? Yet you want us to believe that there were enough beneficial mutations to achieve all the life we see on planet earth.....? Really?

Without all the individually designed and manufactured components of a computer assembled in the right order, there would be no working model. None of them can be missing and all need to be present at the outset.

Without a power supply your computer would still be dead and useless even as a piece of art.

Without an entirely unrelated system being built, manufactured and installed, and our computers being able to connect to it, we would not be having this conversation. Yet all of this had to be planned, designed and built by someone.
A lot of 'someones' as a matter of fact.

The human brain is much more complex than any computer devised by man and yet....that all happened by accident?

Where is the rationality in that thinking? Where is human experience to back up what science is trying to persuade us to believe is a fact, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Religion has turned people off God, not the Creator himself. If you don't differentiate, you will fall for the superiority that man wants to claim for himself.....but in what ways is he superior really? Has he used his knowledge of science to benefit mankind, or do we suffer the legacy of science in the development of evil things that have afflicted many more than they have benefitted? You answer that.

Perception based on ancient mythology.

No....its perception based on what we can observe every day. There is a purpose for all things in earth's ecology. When man leaves the Eco-system to itself, it functions as it was designed to function interdependently.....and did so long before man arrived.

By putting the Creator into the realms of fantasy just because some humans did, is no reason to dismiss him.
Science has placed herself in the realms of fantasy too, by offering a substitute belief system with no more support to it than creation by a superior intelligence. Both belief systems are based on faith, not evidence. We all choose our belief system based on what it gives us in return.

When will you provide the same criticism for undisputed science, as you do for the biblical mythology?

You see.....you turn the table on me when it is not I who have killed God. Why do you assume that the Bible is myth? Have you ever really studied it? Have you ever given it a chance to defend itself? By leaving Christendom's version of events out of the equation, and allowing the Bible to speak for itself, you might get a whole new perspective.

This is why you have no real ammo, because you have not investigated the creation as the work of an intelligent designer......one with a purpose for it all.

Once you appreciate how all the systems on earth work together and the systems of the various organisms are part of an amazing overall design, then and only then will you open your mind and heart to the incredible possibilities for this universe if the Creator of it has plans for the whole shebang.

If left up to man, we will be lucky if we survive another World War. ( looks like we could be heading in that direction again) Nuclear weapons in the wrong hands will spell annihilation for all.

The Creator is not going to allow a few worldly smart grasshoppers to ruin his handiwork.

You can choose who to believe and so will I. A power greater than man is the only hope for the perpetuation of all species. This is why I believe. I cannot see the Creator allowing our extinction.

 

[outhouse]

I don't believe that.

To bad.

Fossils have not exactly supported a lot of evolutionary thinking

They support every aspect of it.


Your under some kind of false impression this is even up for debate, its not. You have nothing.



Bring your pre Cambrian rabbit or be done.

 

[JayJayDee]

Evolution Is fact, and all academics states this.

Because the majority of academics support evolution as a fact, this is not surprising.
That is like stating that all Christians accept the Bible as factual evidence of creation....would we expect otherwise?
Do the weight of numbers prove who has the truth? If that argument doesn't work for us, why should it work for you? Can it be proven by either side?......no! And that is the point. Either choice is an act of faith.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

The one large detail that evolutionists agree upon is that they have no idea how life began....they just concentrate on how it changed overtime in the hope that the big question is never put to them. It makes them uncomfortable.

If the Bible is true, and the big question has a "Creator" as the answer to it, then their theory goes up in smoke and them along with it. Its a big gamble.

Let me take these points one at a time from the Bible's perspective (not religion's)

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

The Bible does not argue with this. It simply states that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". This is the beginning of material creation, and there is no timeframe between creation itself, and the period of preparation of the earth from a "formless waste" to a habitable planet. A task that no doubt took eons to perform. God is a timeless being, so there is no time constraint in his work.

2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

Again, the Bible allows for this. Earth's geology is indeed very old and the earth itself gives evidence of dramatic change in the earth's surface. Volcanic activity and earthquakes continue to alter its physical appearance. Mountains rise and deep strata is thrust up, valley are also created on land as well as in the oceans. No argument there.

3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

Since the Bible does not state how long the creative "days" were, this allows for primitive life forms to be very old.
It is clear that the creative periods were not 24 hour days. They may well have been epochs. The Bible allows for this too. Still no argument.

4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Why would the genetic codes not be similar if all living things on this planet were created from the same materials by the same maker?

You think because we share similar DNA that we must all have common ancestors? What if the one common denominator is the Creator himself? By using the raw materials from creation itself, it makes sense that all living things share the same building blocks......they are just all constructed differently.

How does the DNA of a dog know how to make a puppy and not a kitten? The answer is the programming. The cells are pre-programmed to replicate the species that is reproducing. How do they know how to do that? How does a group of cells know that they have to form a lung instead of a heart? Do you never ponder these things at all? Do these unseen "miracles" escape your notice?

King David wrote about the human genome in Psalms 139:14-16......(though he did not know about such things back then)

"I praise you because in an awe-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, I know this very well. 15 My bones were not hidden from you When I was made in secret, When I was woven in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book, Regarding the days when they were formed, Before any of them existed."

I believe that Christendom has a lot to answer for the ignorance surrounding their interpretation of scripture. This is not surprising, since Jesus himself foretold a falling away from the truth by those who would introduce the teachings of men and substitute them for the teachings of the Creator.

You don't have to throw God away because ignorant men messed things up. He is still there as marvellous as he ever was, before some smart humans began to think that they were smarter than he is.