There are many aspects of the Bible that can be proven using science.
Some of these attempts to prove a biblical account are, however, not attempts to vindicate the bible, but attempts to prove that the event was entirely natural and not some supernatural miracle.
Your explanation about the flood, for instance, is watered down by the assertion that the evidence for a flood all over the Earth is actually evidences of multiple (local?) floods in various places over the Earth. This does away with the "global" aspect of the biblical flood.
The Red Sea parting explanation is another one that tries to make the event seem like it was an entirely natural event, whereas close scrutiny of the text shows that this is not possible. The event started after Moses stretched out his hand over the sea. This timing had to be a huge lucky coincidence if the event was really an earthquake. And you'd need double the luck because the return of the sea was also tied to Moses stretching out his hand over the sea.
But here is the death-knell for this earthquake/land-lift theory: In Exodus 14:22 it says "the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground with a wall of water on their right and on their left."
A bit of the seabed raised above sea level would not result in a wall of water on their right and on their left. The description makes it clear that the water was miraculously held back from filling in the dry space where the Israelites were walking.
I think it is also a fallacy to use a natural explanation for an event as a way to exclude God from the scene. God can use whatever means He wants, to achieve His objectives, and that can sometimes include an otherwise natural event. The timing of the event, and the precision with which it targets the intended recipients, still lets us know that God directed that event.
A friend of mine and his brother (who is now a creationist speaker) went on a trip to the region where Sodom and Gomorrah once stood to investigate the site. They found lots of ash heaps, some with partially-burnt bits of wood still in them, and they also found embedded within the ash balls of sulphur. They extracted some of these and have them analysed at the DSIR (scientific research centre) here in New Zealand. They found that the sulphur was exceptionally pure, much purer than what is normally found in nature. But again, the timing of the event (waiting until Lot and his family had left the city) and the accurate targeting of the cities, and the prior knowledge that this event was going to take place, are all indicators that this was a miraculous event too.
Pillar of salt - when you dry out a human body, salt is the residue left over. The human body is made up of mostly water...salt water. Think Saline solution.
Maybe so, but the biblical report suggests that Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt extremely quickly. So quickly, in fact, that she didn't even get a chance to fall over after dying, but remained upright to form a pillar.
Garden of Eden - before humans started polluting the planet the ecology was pristine. There are still pockets of pristine ecology to be found on this planet but as soon as humans invade it, it becomes polluted.
This doesn't prove or disprove anything. Besides, Eden was more than just a pristine environment. It had two special trees there too. And when Adam and Eve were banished from it, there were two angels garden the place to prevent any humans from returning there. It all got destroyed in the flood though, so Eden simply doesn't exist anymore.
Miracles of religion can be explained in various ways both scientifically and by faith. Few personal experiences can be explained scientifically. Especially those that deal with perception. One person sees a ghost and another sees nothing.
To prove that ghost is real, it needs to be measured and tested.
Since it can't be measured and tested it is purely perceptional.
Perceptions can be delusional. Illusions reinforced by fantasy.
To prove that ghost is real, it needs to be measured and tested.
Since it can't be measured and tested it is purely perceptional.
Perceptions can be delusional. Illusions reinforced by fantasy.
The theory of evolution can't be measured and tested. One cannot go back to a time when there was no life on the planet, and take measurements and observations to see how that first self-replicating thing came to be. You can't "repeat" the Jurassic period either. That means the theory of evolution is not scientific, because that would require testing, repeatability, falsifiability, observation, measurement, etc. It is, as you say, perceptional. Those scientists choose to see things that way, even when observation directly contradict it. It is a form of delusion.
The original Bible itself was written by the hand of man. From the mind of man using man made materials. Those scrolls are deteriorated and frail. If they were the Word of God intended to be followed by all mankind, they would have divine qualities, would not deteriorate and fade with time. Or, Is God not so powerful that He can't keep His Word from falling into ruin?
What you are doing here is dictating how God should be preserving his word in your opinion: His original scrolls must be supernaturally protected from decay, unlike everything else in the world.
Faith is important to God. But what place would be needed for faith if there was concrete evidence of God's supernatural power sustaining something? Perhaps God also wanted people to learn the value of His word through having to carefully protect it from decay, and to read and re-read His word when creating new copies to replace the old worn-out documents. In the bible God promises to preserve His word, but by that He didn't mean the physical medium on which His word was written, nor the language in which it was/is expressed. Objects decay and languages evolve, but God HAS preserved His word for us despite that. When copies of scripture of different ages are compared, they turn out to be remarkably similar, with only extremely minor differences that do not affect the meaning.
The concept that God told man what to write is another case of perceptional delusion. Not only is there nobody alive today that experienced these Divine instructions, there is nobody alive today that witnessed the writing. Its all taken on faith.
WHen you look at the prophecies in scripture and compare them with their fulfillment as can be determined from history, it becomes obvious that the scriptures really are God-inspired, and therefore taking them on faith is quite a reasonable thing to do.
Faith is the ability to believe something as truth that one has not witnessed. Most of science is faith. With science tho, the faith is reinforced by reality. Reality that can be observed, measured and tested, by anyone.
The bible can be tested too, such as by the prophecies, or by the accuracy of its historical information (names of towns, kings, empires, etc) and this is the reality that reinforces faith.
As for the 6,000 year age of the Earth?
One must ignore tree rings, No there are no trees that I know of that are older than 6,000 years.
One must ignore tree rings, No there are no trees that I know of that are older than 6,000 years.
There are a number of very old biological structures on earth, such as certain trees, or coral reefs. They all tend to date back to the time of the flood though, suggesting they were the first to establish themselves after the flood and have been growing uninterrupted since then. Here's an interesting article about the oldest trees around the world: https://creation.com/patriarchs-of-the-forest
Using known isotope decay rates, one can measure the amount of decay in a sample and determine how much time has passed for it to have that rate. Carbon Dating is a basis for this science but carbon dating is not accurate. It can't reveal a specific year but what it can reveal is a geological time period.
You can't actually measure the time directly. All one can do is measure the ratio of parent to daughter elements, and from this make a calculation of the alleged time period since the rock was formed or since the organism died. But this calculation involves a number of unprovable assumptions, and can therefore give highly erroneous readings.
Carbon dating isn't any less accurate than the other methods (they're all inaccurate) but it has a restriction due to the sensitivity limits of the detecting equipment. A sample that is 90,000 years or older has so little carbon 14 left that it falls below the detection threshhold of the measuring equipment. So carbon dating is suitable up to about 90,000 years, and only for samples that contain carbon, such as biological specimens, coal, and diamonds.
You should look into polonium decay and the radio halos it produces in rock. Dr Robert Gentry studied these and he concluded that their presence in the rock showed the rock formed rather instantly, instead of the evolutionary scenario of the earth cooling from a ball of molten rock over millions of years.
If the Earth and all of creation is only 6,000 years old, explain Uranium-238?
Uranium-238 does exist, but it shouldn't in such a short lifespan.
The presence of Uranium 238 is no problem for the young earth model. It is part of the material that God created to make the Earth out of. Uranium 238 is the parent isotope, so its billons-of-years decay rate is irrelevant to its presence on a young Earth. But, here's the thing... one of the products of decay is helium. At these decay rates, it forms very slowly. But helium, being a small and inert molecule, will leak out of the rock crystals quite readily. That means, if the Earth is truly billions of years old, there should be very little helium left in rock crystals. But analyses of the rocks has shown that the helium content in the rock indicates about 6000 years of helium loss from the rocks, not billions of years worth.
But lets just say that scientist invented Uranium-238 just to mess with religion. Uranium-238 has been found in Moon samples and meteorites.
Yeah, so? What's your point?
By comparison, Noah's Ark is 'believed' to be on Mt Ararat in Turkey. The actual fact is that it is believed to be there and believed to be Noah's Ark. I've yet to see any paper on the actual discovery with measurements or evidence.
Read the book "The authenticity of the book of Genesis" by Bill Cooper, in particular the section on flood legends from around the world. This section makes it abundantly clear that memories of the flood were passed on to the descendants of the survivors of the flood, who carried it with them after the dispersal at Babel, and down through the ages. The similarities among all those legends from (now) widely separated cultures shows that the flood was a real event. The world's geology testifies to it also. We don't even need the actual ark of Noah to know the flood really happened.
Lets look at this headline from a scientific reference.
The key point is that it was found by "Evangelical Christian Explorers".
Part of the process of scientific process is that it needs to be validated by independent processes.
A Christian looking for Christian artifacts will find Christian artifacts.
The key point is that it was found by "Evangelical Christian Explorers".
Part of the process of scientific process is that it needs to be validated by independent processes.
A Christian looking for Christian artifacts will find Christian artifacts.
Exactly! So evidence for evolution should be sought by creationists, right? Because an evolutionists would be so biased that he'll find evidence for evolution no matter what you put in front of him. Well, I've looked at what creationists say about the alleged evidence for evolution, and their independent assessment of the data is that it does not support the notion of evolution at all. There is variation within a kind, and natural selection, but there is no particles-to-people kind of evolution.
What gets me is a discovery of this magnitude would solidify religion but it is still a belief, not a reality. Wouldn't you think that God would want us to find empirical proof? Or...is that beyond His power as well?
God wants us to have faith in Him. He doesn't want us enamored with relics.
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Two things, There are a lot of rich people that are religious and a camel can be passed thru the eye of a needle. This is because we have the technology to separate and manipulate the genome of animals. A chromosome will easily fit thru the eye of a needle. You could even put a blue whale thru the eye of a needle.
Two things, There are a lot of rich people that are religious and a camel can be passed thru the eye of a needle. This is because we have the technology to separate and manipulate the genome of animals. A chromosome will easily fit thru the eye of a needle. You could even put a blue whale thru the eye of a needle.
Passing an animal's genome through the eye of a needle is not the same as passing the animal itself through the eye of a needle. I think Jesus' intention was to say that it can be very difficult for rich people to enter the kingdom of God because they'd rather hold on to their wealth. It's not impossible, and some rich people don't actually care too much about their wealth so are happy to let it go if that's God's will, but many wealthy people fear losing their wealth and would rather trust in it than in God.
Ya know, I have no problem with you or anyone else having faith in your religion. If it makes your life complete, who am I to care.
What I do care about is having your religion forced upon me without a basis in reality.
What I do care about is having your religion forced upon me without a basis in reality.
The thing is, your style of discussion kind of comes across the same way, like you're the only one with a grasp of the truth and all those religous folk are wrong and misguided and haven't got a clue what they're on about. There are plenty of very clued up people with impeccable scientific qualifications who are also firmly convinced (by the scientific evidence) that the Big Bang and evolution are nonsense and that a recent creation by God as per the bible is scientifically tenable.
Edited by
Busmannz
on Fri 02/09/18 02:21 AM