RE: The Great Story (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

HHV5 -> RE: The Great Story (7/22/2008 10:44:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

It irks me when a theistic evolutionist claims the Bible can't/doesn't record any scientific facts. They do this because they prefer their SCIENCE over God's Word, and they KNOW that their SCIENCE directly contradicts God's Word. Which is why they resort to labeling the Bible as stories/myths. That way, they can have best of both worlds. Despicable.


Is DNA replication in the Bible? Is intracellular signaling in the Bible? Is meiosis in the Bible? Is cell fate determination in the Bible? Chemotaxis? Actin polymerization?

These are all observable phenomena, yet they are not mentioned in the Bible.

Why does scientific observation go against God's word or the Bible? It's observation of reality.



evry1needsgod -> RE: The Great Story (7/22/2008 10:47:31 PM)

quote:

You should learn some of the history of your religion.


Haha. I'm not Catholic for this specific reason - compromise.



evry1needsgod -> RE: The Great Story (7/22/2008 10:57:10 PM)

quote:

Is DNA replication in the Bible? Is intracellular signaling in the Bible? Is meiosis in the Bible? Is cell fate determination in the Bible? Chemotaxis? Actin polymerization?


No, but the Bible does tell us how the universe was created, and it also tells us how long it took! Imagine that! A loving God letting us know how He created us - ex nihilo, not from an ape. Who'da thunk it?!

quote:

Why does scientific observation go against God's word or the Bible?


Which is absolute? Your scientific observations/interpretations or God's Word? Yes, scientific observations are observations of reality, but your interpretatino of those observations are not always reality. Evolutionist's reject reality, then substitute their own, then claim they are right because they live in reality. But the only reality they live in is their own. God's reality is the only one I'm concerned about, and no where in Scripture does God tell us we came about through evolution. But, more than once, in both the OT and NT, God's Word references Adam, our one and only decendant, as recorded in Genesis. A theistic evolutions has no Scripture to back him up. But, I guess they don't really WANT Scripture backing them up.



drj11 -> RE: The Great Story (7/22/2008 11:45:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

You should learn some of the history of your religion.


Haha. I'm not Catholic for this specific reason - compromise.


It's not just Catholics who reject literal interpretation. History is full of examples.

There's no compromise in Catholicism, at least when it comes to interpretation of Genesis, nor is there in any other denomination with similar views. Refusing to engage in a brute force attack on reality, attempting to somehow will it into becoming a cartoonish caricature of a mythological story is not compromise.



gluadys -> RE: The Great Story (7/23/2008 12:14:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

I don't need a scientist to tell me this information is not in the bible.


But you just admitted that your observational knowledge determines to you what is or is not in the Bible.


Are you suggesting that because penguins are not mentioned in the bible, they do not exist in nature?

Do you think that the existence of penguins in nature is what determines that they are not mentioned in the bible?

Do you think I would find a mention of penguins in the bible if I observed that they do not exist in nature?

Or is the existence of penguins in nature (and my observation of same) is utterly independent of whether they get mentioned in the bible--and my observation that they are not mentioned?

By the way, I have no observational or scientific knowledge of angels, but I still observe that they are mentioned in the bible. How do you explain that if it is a commitment to science that determines to me what is or is not in the bible?

How do you determine what is in the bible apart from reading (observing) it?

I really can make no sense of your criticism. To say something is not mentioned in the bible is something you can check for yourself simply by reading it. Is reading now a tainted science?


quote:

Science is what scientists observe, so yes, you do let scientists tell you what is or is not in the Bible.


No, I determine what is and is not in the bible by reading the bible. How could reading a science text tell me what is or is not in the bible?

The question is whether what is in the bible determines what we observe outside the bible. Are penguins an illusion because they are not mentioned in the bible? Are unicorns a fact because they are (at least in the KJV translation)?

quote:

And stop telling God what He can and can not record in Scriptures.


I make no claim at all about what can or cannnot be in scripture. I do observe, however, what is in scripture and what is not.

quote:

It irks me when a theistic evolutionist claims the Bible can't/doesn't record any scientific facts.


Well, you are talking about someone else then, as I never made that claim. In fact I would say the bible does record some scientific facts.

It also records some things that are not scientific facts. Indeed, one of the most important things it records is not a scientific fact: the resurrection of Jesus. That doesn't make it a false report. But it is certainly not a scientific report.

quote:

Which is why they resort to labeling the Bible as stories/myths.


It depends on whether the narrative is a story or a historical report. To refer to a historical report as a story would be incorrect. But it would be equally incorrect to refer to a story as a historical report.

I suggest your problem is that you think it somehow demeans God to depict him as a story-teller. Yet Jesus was a story-teller and he told the Pharisees that he only does what he sees his father doing. And he told his disciples that if they have seen him they have seen the Father.

I do not consider that it demeans God to be described as a story-teller. I do not think it lessens the value of scripture to contain stories. If you do, who is it that is really setting limits on what can and cannot be in scripture?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI