The evolutionary position though has no real scientific basis to it...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Flat Earth myth and the Bible.
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
The so called robust evolution cannot give to us how life originated apart from a Creator, nor present any evidence of species change!
At its most basic, wind is caused by unequal heating of the atmosphere. The Coriolis force is why winds in storms and high pressure move in a circular direction, why we have NE trades and prevailing westerlies at different latitudes. (N. Hemisphere wind directions)
I my have missed it, but has anyone noted Newton's 1st law of motion, which states (among other things) that a body in motion will continue in motion unless acted upon by another force? The earth on which I'd be standing if I were outside is rotating at about 700 mph (I'm a bit south of 45N latitude) and since I'm not flying off the ground, I must also be moving at that speed and in the same direction. If I were to jump off the ground (not a sure thing at my age) I would then land on the spot from which I launched, unless hit by a bus while in mid air. And IMO Newtonian physics are perfectly valid for the precision of measurement available to the average non-physicist. I think it more accurate to say that Einstein refined (or extended), rather than replaced, Newton's physics.
(That the surface of the planet rotates at different speeds is also a non-issue. Anyone who has seen a skilled ball handler spinning a basketball on his/her fingertip can obviously note that the part of the ball halfway from finger to top is moving a whole lot faster than the part near the supporting digit. I've yet to see a basketball self-destruct while being spun.)
Yes, as mentioned, "low and high pressure systems move air from high pressure areas to low pressure areas." High pressure = lots of sun light. Low pressure = clouds and less atmospheric heating.
As noted above.
As noted above.
Do you believe that all the books of the Bible should be interpreted in the same way i.e. literally?
An example I use is to stand in a school bus while it is moving and jump in the air. You don't suddenly hit the back wall of the bus because you are moving at the same speed as the bus. But then let that bus stop short as it hits a tree and you will go flying because you continue to travel at the speed the bus was traveling until it hit the tree.
Or in a passenger jet moving at 500mph - of course the flight attendants might get a little upset at you for jumping in the aisle
I agree. Science cannot address the "unseen." That's a matter of faith.
Heb 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
So if neither the origins of life, nor species changed be observed/seen, why do they see that as being factual still?
Science doesn't actually present facts. It offer theories based on the currently best known data. As we have seen, these change a other scientists build upon and expand our current view. Sometimes there's aggrandizement.
Actually, I believe that science deals with theories not absolute facts. There's been a discussion here about the theory of the flat earth being replaced by the idea of a spherical earth. The earth as the center of the universe was replaced by the idea that that's not the case. Newton's Laws were not replaced but extended as noted earlier by Einstein. The idea that diseases were caused by demon possession was replaced by the discovery of bacteria and other causes.
My point is science gives us the most accurate detailed view of our surroundings at a given time. There's nothing to say that our answers today will not be replaced by new discoveries tomorrow.
The only source of ultimate truth is God. We can obtain some of this now by studying the Bible and having a relationship with Him. But as you ask, why not just admit the superiority of faith versus science? The answer is we only know a small part about God's ultimate reality. As the Bible says:
1Co 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
We will understand the ultimate reality when we join Him and see Him face to face. For the time being, science provides us with the details required to advance civilization. Do you really think anyone could have discovered bacteria, designed a Space Shuttle, learned how to do heart replacement, discovered electricity, built an automobile, etc. using only the Bible for information? The obvious answer is of course not.
On the other hand, none of the prominent cosmologists have come up with an answer to the simple question: Where did all this come from in the beginning? Nor can they say where we as individuals come from before our birth and where are we going after our death. That's why I believe there is not any reason to debate science versus religion for believers. The answer is both are important but only to address the questions that are relevant to each one and don't contradict each other. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I don't believe that the details of exactly how He did that are provided in Genesis. As He stated His ways are much higher than our ways and His thoughts are much higher than ours. I accept that. He's God. I'm not.
For a time, it was thought that astrophysicist Stephen Hawking had also left a tiny gap in his credo window for a magical deity. However, he has now come out and declared that there is no God.
He gave an interview to Spain's El Mundo in which he expressed his firm belief that el mundo was the work of scientifically explainable phenomena, not of a supreme being.
Hawking said: "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."
I'm not sure whether there was a specific moment in which science overtook the deistic explanation of existence. However, El Mundo pressed him on the suggestion in "A Brief History of Time" that a unifying theory of science would help mankind "know the mind of God."
Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."
He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."
Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God
He gave an interview to Spain's El Mundo in which he expressed his firm belief that el mundo was the work of scientifically explainable phenomena, not of a supreme being.
Hawking said: "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."
I'm not sure whether there was a specific moment in which science overtook the deistic explanation of existence. However, El Mundo pressed him on the suggestion in "A Brief History of Time" that a unifying theory of science would help mankind "know the mind of God."
Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."
He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."
Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God
But he wasn’t above using theists to advance a theory which he thought would, once accepted, eliminate theism. That Darwin wouldn’t let a divine foot in the door is perhaps best illustrated by his continual battle with his friends and fellow evolutionists, Charles Lyell, Alfred Russel Wallace, and Asa Gray. They were on his side, but argued that man’s moral and intellectual abilities could not be explained by natural selection. This annoyed Darwin to no end, and to prove them wrong, wrote his Descent of Man, where he argued that not only man’s moral and intellectual capacities are brought about by natural selection, but even religion itself. That was his last word on God.
What were Darwin's Religious Views? | Center for Science and Culture
What were Darwin's Religious Views? | Center for Science and Culture
- Science has failed to find natural evidence of God. Natural evidence is all there is. No God. Case closed.
- Slightly softer is this line of reasoning: Science erases the "need" for God as an explanation of our experiences, and God either doesn't exist or is at best a hypothesis (to the agnostic).
- And then there's the view expressed in the title of University of Hawaii physicist and astronomer Victor Stenger's new book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist." Stenger also contributed to the new booklet.
There is no theory (or even hypothesis) of God in science. God is not even a named concept. Science is strictly concerned with observing reality and attempting to provide the best explanation of its observations based upon quality evidence and rigorous methods. It is possible that the known universe was created by a sentient entity but science does not care unless the evidence highlights that possibility. If science were ever to find evidence of a creator entity it would be all over it with great enthusiasm.†
Does Science Hate God?
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Psa_19:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Does Science Hate God?
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Psa_19:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
It was not always so. The first astronomers, like Tycho Brahe and Copernicus, believed that they were speaking God's thoughts after Him. When Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton and others founded the Royal Society, the first scientific society, with Charles II as its patron, its constitution stated that all scientific discoveries glorified God, as indeed they do. When Michael Faraday was astounding audiences with his scientific exhibitions, he was always careful to give glory to God.
In 1863, no fewer that 717 scientists and academics, including 86 members of the Royal Society, signed a manifesto entitled The Declaration of Students of the Physical and Natural Sciences opposing Darwin.
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5:30 PM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 5:30 PM Pacific.
For those who may be interested:
Aristotle presented evidence for a spherical earth back in 330 BC. In 240 BC Eratosthenes calculated the earth's circumference.
Aristotle presented evidence for a spherical earth back in 330 BC. In 240 BC Eratosthenes calculated the earth's circumference.
- Status