A literal 6 24-hr days?

[john6:63]

How can quoting scripture be setting God up to be a liar? I believe if one disagrees or attempts to find loop holes in scripture by allowing science to influence ones view of the bible is the one calling God a liar.

Correct me if I’m wrong, which I’m sure you will, since I don’t hold a PhD or much less a degree in science.

Since Microevolution and Macroevolution are two different words, they must have two different meanings. I would assume anyway.

Microevolution refers to small-scale changes within a kind. These changes are “observed” within its kind. Different breeds of dogs, horses, even humans. Do you believe when a “cold virus” changes as a result of resisting penicillin, it’s still a “cold virus?” Just a different type within it’s kind.

Macroevolution refers to large-scale changes in the characteristics of life. This as far as I’m concerned this isn’t or never has been observed. But many atheists contend that is how we human came about. A cat can’t evolve into a dog. Atheists who believe in this type of evolution as their religion contends that with enough time anything can evolve. The god of this religion is time.

Now I would like to know how old Adam was when he died? Being created on day 6.

 

[Meatros]

How can quoting scripture be setting God up to be a liar? I believe if one disagrees or attempts to find loop holes in scripture by allowing science to influence ones view of the bible is the one calling God a liar.

You can believe that, but it doesn't make it true.

Microevolution refers to small-scale changes within a kind.

Being a grammar nazi, I want to say species-not kind.

Macroevolution refers to large-scale changes in the characteristics of life.

A more accurate definition of Macroevolution would be "microevolution over a long period of time".

But many atheists contend that is how we human came about.

As do many Christians, with the exception of God having a hand in it.

A cat can’t evolve into a dog.

Very true, and evolutionary theory does not say anything like this.

Atheists who believe in this type of evolution as their religion contends that with enough time anything can evolve.

Who cares what atheists believe? We are talking about scientists and people who accept evolution. Evolution is *NOT* the same thing as an atheist. Evolution is not a religion, it's a theory.

Now I would like to know how old Adam was when he died? Being created on day 6.

You tell me, you are the biblical literalist-not I.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Meatros,

Read the definition again, but truly give some thought to it this time.

theory, as compared here, implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena [the theory of evolution];hypothesis implies an inadequacy of evidence in support of an explanation that is tentatively inferred, often as a basis for further experimentation [the nebular hypothesis]; law implies an exact formulation of the principle operating in a sequence of events in nature, observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions [the law of the conservation of energy]
-Webster’s New World Dictionary

Notice that theory is an “inexact” formulation of principles, a formulation that cannot be shown to operate empirically. A scientific law is an “exact” formulation of principles that can be shown with unvarying uniformity empirically. Evolution is a theory because it is not empirical, or in other words, it is not demonstrable through observation and experiment. One may interpret the facts in such a way as to conclude they imply considerable evidence in support of a theoretical principle, but this does not equate with being able to demonstrate the principle in the environment or the laboratory. If it were demonstrable, it would be a law and there would be no debate as to its validity. There would be mathematical formulations that would give exacting detailed proofs as to its operations.

I am going to refrain from making presumptions about your motives on this issue. Possibly you came to this erroneous belief because you think that theories, which often address higher order problems that cannot be studied empirically, are somehow special and elevated in science. They are not, but simply deal with the things that are just beyond our understanding. Theories receive a lot more attention, discussion, and research, but this does not elevate them “authoritatively” above law. A theory does not have the authoritative weight a law has. Within the bounds of their scientific statements, laws are conclusive, theories are not. From this perspective a law speaks with commanding authority with regard to its subject matter, a theory speaks from a lesser, weaker position, a position that can be challenged by new evidence. This is as clearly as I know how to state the difference between law and theory. If you have a scientific source that will dispute what I am saying let’s have it and I will contend with them.

[ June 04, 2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Faith, Fact & Feeling ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by john6:63:
How can quoting scripture be setting God up to be a liar? I believe if one disagrees or attempts to find loop holes in scripture by allowing science to influence ones view of the bible is the one calling God a liar.

Aww c'mon, J6, even you don't follow that rule. Check out the thread I started concerning what does Genesis One really say. Do you disregard Copernicus and all the astronomers since and believe, instead, there is a solid dome over our heads that holds back the water from falling in on us? 'cause if you don't, then you are just as guilty as anybody for believing science instead of what the Bible says.

Another example of where I bet you will do this is when the Bible tells us that all the flying insects - such as flies and grasshoppers - have four legs. Do you join with me in believing they actually have six, or do you stick with believing the Bible?

Really, I'm serious. Neo literalists such as yourself simply fail to realize how much they've
already departed from the literal teaching of the Bible.

 

[Meatros]

I feel this is a hopeless battle as you seem intent on defining things differently then the scientists who use them. You do not post any links to your assertions.

Read these links as they explain better then I:
What Science is and is not:

The word "theory," however, is used differently in science than it is in popular speech. In popular language, theory and hypothesis have the same meaning and are treated as synonyms. A "theory" in science, however, is the result of a hypothesis which has been tested by many other scientists from different perspectives and which holds up to experimental tests. A "theory" in science is a very elevated notion. A theory is an idea that has a large body of observational evidence to support it and that has come to be accepted by most scientists in the field of study. I'm sure you've all felt the consequences of the Theory of Gravity when you trip and fall. Yet we call Gravity a "theory" rather than a "fact" because there are no absolutes in scientific understanding.

+

Another word that is used differently in popular speech than it is in science is the word "law." In popular language, a "law" is a "must," no questions asked. Mostly, societal laws are a list of what you may not do. Rob a bank, go to jail. In science, a "law" doesn't mean anything so strict as that! A scientific law is a principle on which things *seem* to work.

And to reinforce the "proofs are for math":

Science is never absolutely sure about anything, so we continue to test theories and laws to see if we can poke holes and thereby learn something even more wonderful about Nature.

Proof and Science

Standard introductory science exam question: "What is the difference between a law and a theory?"
Standard student answer: "A law has been proven and a theory has not."

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Ok wise guy, what's right then?

+

Scientific law: a generalized description, usually expressed in mathematical terms, which describes the empirical behavior of matter.

Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them.

Here's theory:

In science, a theory or hypothesis is the explanation for the events that have been observed. Scientists create hypotheses to try and explain the observed behavior of the world. They do so by creating an explanation that can be tested (an hypothesis). If a lot of evidence is collected to support the hypothesis, then they'll probably accept the hypothesis as a good explanation, and it may, given even more testing, become an accepted theory. This is pretty much what is meant by proving something in court. If there is enough evidence, then you will be able to convince your peers that your explanation is good.

Common myths about science:

This myth deals with the general belief that with increased evidence there is a developmental sequence through which scientific ideas pass on their way to final acceptance. Many believe that scientific ideas pass through the hypothesis and theory stages and finally mature as laws. A former U.S. president showed his misunderstanding of science by saying that he was not troubled by the idea of evolution because it was "just a theory." The president's misstatement is the essence of this myth; that an idea is not worthy of consideration until "lawness" has been bestowed upon it.


The problem created by the false hierarchical nature inherent in this myth is that theories and laws are very different kinds of knowledge. Of course there is a relationship between laws and theories, but one simply does not become the other--no matter how much empirical evidence is amassed. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the explanations of those generalizations (Rhodes & Schaible, 1989; Homer & Rubba, 1979; Campbell, 1953).


For instance, Newton described the relationship of mass and distance to gravitational attraction between objects with such precision that we can use the law of gravity to plan spaceflights. During the Apollo 8 mission, astronaut Bill Anders responded to the question of who was flying the spacecraft by saying, "I think that Issac Newton is doing most of the driving fight now." (Chaikin, 1994, p. 127). His response was understood by all to mean that the capsule was simply following the basic laws of physics described by Isaac Newton years centuries earlier.

The more thorny, and many would say more interesting, issue with respect to gravity is the explanation for why the law operates as it does. At this point, there is no well. accepted theory of gravity. Some physicists suggest that gravity waves are the correct explanation for the law of gravity, but with clear confirmation and consensus lacking, most feel that the theory of gravity still eludes science. Interestingly, Newton addressed the distinction between law and theory with respect to gravity. Although he had discovered the law of gravity, he refrained from speculating publically about its cause. In Principial, Newton states" . . . I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis . . ." " . . . it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained . . ." (Newton, 1720/1946, p. 547).

Take from the above:

Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the explanations of those generalizations

If you can't understand this basic difference, I really don't know how else to explain it to you.

When you read about science you read a SCIENCE BOOK not THE DICTIONARY.

 

[john6:63]

Paul of Eugene quotes:

Another example of where I bet you will do this is when the Bible tells us that all the flying insects - such as flies and grasshoppers - have four legs. Do you join with me in believing they actually have six, or do you stick with believing the Bible?

I contacted several of Johnvs’ “rabbinic instructors” the same one’s that said that told Johnv that Noah and Adam really didn’t live that long lives. It was representative of their faithful lives. So this is what they told me concerning your insect question. (I was on hold for half an hour wanting!)

The description of insects walking on four legs is taking in context that two of the front legs could be considered to be the equivalent of hands. That is probably what is intended here.

When God said he created in 6 days, I take it LITERAL. When Jesus at the last supper referred to bread as his body and told His disciples to eat the bread in “remembrance” of Me. I don’t take it as His Literal body. One has to use just a little common sense when reading the Bible!

 

[Meatros]

The description of insects walking on four legs is taking in context that two of the front legs could be considered to be the equivalent of hands. That is probably what is intended here.

When God said he created in 6 days, I take it LITERAL. When Jesus at the last supper referred to bread as his body and told His disciples to eat the bread in “remembrance” of Me. I don’t take it as His Literal body. One has to use just a little common sense when reading the Bible!

Why interpret the first, but not the second. As has been shown Genesis 1 contradicts 2.

So what makes it alright for you to interpret what you feel like and chastise those who interpret things differently?

 

[Helen]

In the Hebrew, there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[Meatros]

Cite?

 

[Helen]

Dr. Bernard Northrup, Hebrew scholar and professor (retired) and personal friend.

Feel free to ask him.

http://www.ldolphin.org/genages.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/taphon.html

http://www.jewishkansascity.org/fview_message.asp?forumID=144&messageID=964 -- referenced by a rabbi in terms of the accuracy of his understanding of Hebrew

http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html -- a little over halfway down in "Testimony of the Bible" you will find we referenced him extensively and that he was very helpful in some translation matters.

He has done extensive work through the years traveling, upon request, to various countries where translations of the Bible were being done for various languages, to check the accuracy against the Hebrew and Greek. He is a respected scholar of these languages.

Other explanations:
http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR133.htm
http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con005.asp
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20010812.htm

It is poor hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) to read two separate accounts (the creation of the earth as a biosphere in Genesis 1 and the creation of a single garden and the happenings therein in Genesis 2) and then cite the differences in the two accounts as contradictory.
from http://www.garden-of--eden.com/

Hope that helps.

 

[Meatros]

It must be realized that the account in chapter one does not say or assert that Adam and Eve were created together or at the exact same moment. However, both Adam and Eve were created on day six

I see, so it's only acceptable to interpret the bible in the fashion that you and these people accept.

Interesting.

 

[john6:63]

Excellent sites Helen, but I doubt it if some here will actually benefit from it.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Meatros,

Listen, if I can disagree with most scientists on most issues, don’t think that I’m afraid to challenge this issue of definitions, especially since I have a pretty good idea where this definition bending on the part of scientists comes from to begin with. I have read what you said, plus many other discussions I have come across. Let me ask you a question. If macro-evolution was observed in the environment, and could be replicated in the laboratory, would it still be a theory? If not, what would it be? Think about it, if it was as unfailing, as reproducible as the effects of gravity, would it still be called a theory? The obvious answer is no. The definitional issue around the terms “theory” and “law” have only become important to the “philosophy” of science since they have involved themselves in unprovable theories around origins. I have no problem standing opposed to scientists or you on this issue. I believe myth #1 is a biased perspective by its author. Please take note of myth #8 (Scientists are Particularly Objective) on the page you linked.

 

[Meatros]

Listen, if I can disagree with most scientists on most issues, don’t think that I’m afraid to challenge this issue of definitions, especially since I have a pretty good idea where this definition bending on the part of scientists comes from to begin with.

I don't think you are afraid to challenge the definitions. In fact I think that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. This is attested to your claims that a *scientific* theory can magically change into a *scientific* law. Do you have ANY sort of evidence to support this? No.

If macro-evolution was observed in the environment, and could be replicated in the laboratory, would it still be a theory?

Yes, the theory of evolution will always be a theory. Just like the theory of relativity or the theory of gravity.

Think about it, if it was as unfailing, as reproducible as the effects of gravity, would it still be called a theory?

Gravity IS a theory! Didn't you see the quote from Newton???:

" . . . I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis . . ." " . . . it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained . .

In other words, he discovered the Law of Gravity[/i], but he didn't discover the theory of gravity.

I have no problem standing opposed to scientists or you on this issue.

No but you continually and stubbornly refuse to accept that you are mistaken.

I believe myth #1 is a biased perspective by its author. Please take note of myth #8 (Scientists are Particularly Objective) on the page you linked.

Did you happen to ignore all the other links I've posted? You haven't posted diddly in way of what scientists think of theories and laws.

You keep asserting utter nonsense in the vain hope that someone will believe you.

Call evolution a hypothesis if you like, at this point I don't care, but you are redefining the terms scientists use in a vain effort to not have to admit that you are wrong.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Faith, Fact & Feeling:
I believe myth #1 is a biased perspective by its author. Please take note of myth #8 (Scientists are Particularly Objective) on the page you linked.

BTW-since bias seems to be an issue, what about the Answers in Genesis site I gave you that contradicted what you said? Did you forget about that one?

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

I don't think you are afraid to challenge the definitions. In fact I think that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. This is attested to your claims that a *scientific* theory can magically change into a *scientific* law. Do you have ANY sort of evidence to support this? No.

Why are you so mad and insulting if you believe you are right? It seems to me if you are so sure of yourself your feelings would be in check. You just can’t stand it if someone disagrees with that great god you have made out of science can you? My logic is impeccable, and it really doesn’t matter what you site or what you believe. BTW, you didn’t answer my question about if evolution was demonstrable.

Yes, the theory of evolution will always be a theory. Just like the theory of relativity or the theory of gravity.

I disagree. I think evolution is more along the lines of myth, or wild pagan imagination, and will be proven false. If it was demonstrable it would be a law though. Relativity may very well be good science. Einstein’s book was one of the first science books I read back a couple decades ago. I don’t agree with all the speculation around origins that is made in conjunction with its tenets, but the behavior of space, time and matter at extreme states has some empirical support, unlike that of evolution. The behavior of gravitation is a law. Now the substance and underlying physics are still shrouded. If I remember correctly, from a relativistic perspective it is matter taking the shortest path in curved space-time. No, gravitational forces are a matter of law. And if the mechanisms behind gravity are ever discovered, observed, and/or repeated experimentally, that will be a law also.

Gravity IS a theory! Didn't you see the quote from Newton???:

You mean this one:
I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis . . ." " . . . it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained

This quote proves the point I made in the previous paragraph.

In other words, he discovered the Law of Gravity, but he didn't discover the theory of gravity.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Orbits/newtongrav.html
http://plabpc.csustan.edu/astro/newton/gravity.htm

Just a few of the hundreds on the web about the law of gravity.

Now look at some sites on the theory of gravity:

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/General_relativity.html
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_home.html
http://plato.phy.ohiou.edu/~dutta/notes/node17.html

Two deal with general relativity, the other two quantum physics.

No but you continually and stubbornly refuse to accept that you are mistaken.

If you really believe your right, what’s the problem? Are you unsure of yourself?

Did you happen to ignore all the other links I've posted? You haven't posted diddly in way of what scientists think of theories and laws.

You keep asserting utter nonsense in the vain hope that someone will believe you.

Call evolution a hypothesis if you like, at this point I don't care, but you are redefining the terms scientists use in a vain effort to not have to admit that you are wrong.

Don’t cry Meatros, those scientists nor I will lose any sleep over it. Will you?

BTW-since bias seems to be an issue, what about the Answers in Genesis site I gave you that contradicted what you said? Did you forget about that one?

Didn’t forget. I disagree with them here and in other places, if that’s ok with you of course.

 

[Meatros]

Why are you so mad and insulting if you believe you are right? It seems to me if you are so sure of yourself your feelings would be in check. You just can’t stand it if someone disagrees with that great god you have made out of science can you? My logic is impeccable, and it really doesn’t matter what you site or what you believe. BTW, you didn’t answer my question about if evolution was demonstrable.

My feelings are in check. Your ego on the other hand clearly isn't. I'm not going to answer you question about evolution until I'm sure you are clear with basic scientific principles. What would the point be?

I disagree.

And you have been shown to be wrong.

I think evolution is more along the lines of myth, or wild pagan imagination, and will be proven false. If it was demonstrable it would be a law though.

You can use whatever rhetoric makes you sleep easier at night, but you are still wrong in your assertion about theories becoming laws. Right now you are being stubborn. I believe that once you pray about it that the good lord Jesus will remove your stubbornness and pride and you will understand the difference between the two concepts of theory and law.

The behavior of gravitation is a law

True, and why it behaves this way is THEORY.

This quote proves the point I made in the previous paragraph.

Read it again. You either have a mental block against accepting that theories and laws are two different things or you are stubborn.

Just a few of the hundreds on the web about the law of gravity.

Now look at some sites on the theory of gravity:

Proving my point even more.

If you really believe your right, what’s the problem? Are you unsure of yourself?

Nice try, as you can see I am just as sure of myself as I've ever been. You on the other hand are waffling. You have posted websites that contradict your position. So keep your rhetoric to yourself.

Don’t cry Meatros, those scientists nor I will lose any sleep over it. Will you?

Nice rhetoric, trying to make this an emotional issue isn't going to make you right.

Didn’t forget. I disagree with them here and in other places, if that’s ok with you of course.

Let me ask you a question: If everyone disagrees with your opinion about Laws and Theories, does that mean all of them are wrong in how they define the words or does it mean that you are wrong?

Get over yourself.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

My feelings are in check. Your ego on the other hand clearly isn't. I'm not going to answer you question about evolution until I'm sure you are clear with basic scientific principles. What would the point be?

My ego isn’t in check? Well, I guess that is just the difference between you and I, my ego is not in check and I know it.

And you have been shown to be wrong.

Nice try, remember what your beloved scientists say, nothing is ever quite proven. What you mean to say is that you have a theory that I’m wrong.

You can use whatever rhetoric makes you sleep easier at night, but you are still wrong in your assertion about theories becoming laws. Right now you are being stubborn. I believe that once you pray about it that the good lord Jesus will remove your stubbornness and pride and you will understand the difference between the two concepts of theory and law.

Meatros, at your very best state you are altogether vanity.

Read it again. You either have a mental block against accepting that theories and laws are two different things or you are stubborn.

Stubborn.

Proving my point even more.

Proving what, that your mixing the theory of gravity with the law of gravity?

Nice try, as you can see I am just as sure of myself as I've ever been. You on the other hand are waffling. You have posted websites that contradict your position. So keep your rhetoric to yourself.

No contradictions on my side, I have stated what I disagree with. You, on the other hand, have failed to answer my question. What would happen if evolution was demonstrated empirically? What would it be then?

Let me ask you a question: If everyone disagrees with your opinion about Laws and Theories, does that mean all of them are wrong in how they define the words or does it mean that you are wrong?

Get over yourself.

I already did years ago. Now, you get over your love for scientific opinion. All change is attributable to the unreasonable man Meatros. Only those that are man enough to stand up against obviously stupid statements like “proven theories do not become laws”, are able to move thought in the right direction. What do you call a proven theory Meatros?

 

[Meatros]

My ego isn’t in check? Well, I guess that is just the difference between you and I, my ego is not in check and I know it.

And your unapologetic about it. How rich.

Nice try, remember what your beloved scientists say, nothing is ever quite proven. What you mean to say is that you have a theory that I’m wrong.

I see the game you are playing. You are trying to get me frustrated enough that I ignore you, thus absolving you of having to admit you are wrong. I hate to admit it, but it's working. Look currently I'm not trying to convince you of evolutions validity. I'm trying to explain the vernacular of science.

Meatros, at your very best state you are altogether vanity.

Again you would be wrong. I admit when I am wrong, I have done so on this board and several others. You on the other hand are stubborn. Instead of owning up to it, you are using inflammatory rhetoric to handwave the issue away.

Proving what, that your mixing the theory of gravity with the law of gravity?

I'm not mixing the two. You are being a juvenile now. You clearly know that there is a difference between the two and that a theory *doesn't* become a law. How old are you?

No contradictions on my side, I have stated what I disagree with. You, on the other hand, have failed to answer my question. What would happen if evolution was demonstrated empirically? What would it be then?

I have already told you: It would still be a theory! Theories explain facts and laws they are *not* a step in some ladder of correctness.

I already did years ago. Now, you get over your love for scientific opinion. All change is attributable to the unreasonable man Meatros. Only those that are man enough to stand up against obviously stupid statements like “proven theories do not become laws”, are able to move thought in the right direction. What do you call a proven theory Meatros?

You already did years ago, yet you admit that your ego is not in check? How does that make sense??

I will state it again a scientific theory always remains a theory. No amount of validation switches it to a law. A law pertains to a generalization, a principle, or a pattern. A theory explains the law.

For example: What goes up must come down-this would be a law.
A theory would explain why what goes up must come down.

A scientific theory does not become a law.

I can make it no clearer then that. If you need help understanding the difference I suggest you go back to school, because if you don't understand the difference by now then you need some basic education.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Meatros,

Well, if I'm going to brag about myself, it should be about my humility. I went back and reread the entirety of our exchange. I even did a considerable search on the web. Interestingly enough I found a few instances of scientists discussing theory and fact in the same manner I did. But, after careful consideration it is clear that the definitions you posted are the ones used in the scientific community. At least I found some real scientists making the same mistake (made me feel a little better). I guess if you can admit being wrong about something (as you have stated), a vain, prideful, egotist like myself can’t let you out do me now can I? My apologies and God bless.