Welcome to Gaia! ::

Now this kinda be difficult to explain due to its scientific nature, but the perspective is what counts.
It seems that there are more and more people claiming a christian background (not dogging on if you are a christian or not thats a totally different subject....) are stating that science is totally wrong, for instance that the world was created in thousands of years (in biblical terms ill embelish on that in a moment.) and most of all that evolution is totally false in every pretense. Now im not saying the Bible is wrong just the people that are trying to interpret it.
For the first argument about the world in thousands of years. well That can never be explained for two reasons the basis of geology is on assumptions no one has been around for thounsands of years to know how the world works. But on the same token the time scale today may have been totally different in the beginning. Just think, the time we use today is based on the rising and setting of the sun, and with that the watches we use were based on the sundails used in anceint times. So if the Earth was closer or farther from the sun do you think that there would be a signifigant time difference from which we think it was made to actuall.

Now onto evolution. First the basics Gensis clearly states that we were made of dirt. CARBON. carbon is the most abundant element in this planet and if you havent noticed WE ARE CARBON based life forms. everything organic is based on carbon chains. Next DNA, well the best way to explain this is that every building has a structure and every structure has a blueprint of how to build the structure. people are no diffrent. With that said Dna is the basic blue print of the cells that tell the cells how to manipulate protiens to do their job. IE red blood cells carry blood, lymphnodes to fight disease so on and so forth. ANd the big thing about DNA is replication. it replicates itself over and over. As such every once in a while there is a flaw. such as a missed gene or an addition. This can be seen in cats all cats have same DNA but some cats seem to be born with six toes instead of just five. (mutation?) Also how can a species (homosapiens) be so differnt and yet the same? all have the same number of chromosomes yet people have different abililties.
CONCLUSION just to sum up, In this disscussion do you think it is possible that science and Biblical ideals can be one and the same keeping in mind that science is not concrete, it is a try at explaining why things are. The Bible explains already whats true. but was writen in ancient ages using their terminology
YOUR THOUGHTS?

The COEXIST logo really should be made of test tubes and Christian motifs.

Hahaha.

male were made from the dust of the earth. basic carbon we are carbon bass life forms. science back up the bible in that respect.

Wonderful how people thought the Bible said the Earth was plain and many other dumb stuff. The Bible and science, actually, are deeply related:

-The Bible says the Earth is round.
-The Bible talks about enthropy.
-The Bible relates blood as important for life.
-The Bible talks about the conservation of mass and energy.

In short, a lot of those facts that are usually attributed to "human" science, have already been stated in the Bible. Regarding evolution, though, it's not the same. Microevolution (metamorphosis and that kind of stuff) is science: Macroevolution is not, as explained by Dr. Grady S. McMurtry.

Verses, please?

If people back then didn't know the earth rotates around the sun, why should we expect to find that their texts say that?

The science in the Bible isn't as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Much of Aristotle's science, for example, has been disproved. That doesn't mean that texts that refer to the world in those terms must be invalid. The author didn't know it was otherwise and wasn't lying (at least not on the basis of what science he's using to describe the world). I'd argue that it's the same with the Bible.

With the exception of the creation account, possibly, I don't see why there needs to be so much issue over the Bible's concurrence with modern science. The things in there that might seem like discrepancies were the best that the authors could do at the time. They didn't know anything to the contrary. Thus, it doesn't bring into question the validity of the text (with except, perhaps, the creation account).

Of course. Thats what the study of Apologetics is all about, the Bible has yet to be proven incompatible with science. God made science after all, His book and His teachings should go right along with them.
I see the only explinaton of science through God.

Thanks!

Answer me this, then.
What about Joshua 10, when the sun stands still and the moon stops?

It has a very simple explanation. That was what the author thought was going on at the time, but now that we know the sun is stationary while the earth rotates around it and the moon rotates around the earth, we know that the earth and moon stopped, not the sun. That doesn't mean that this didn't actually happen because the terms to explain it in the text didn't match up with modern science.

That's why I don't see why it's such a big issue that the Bible be "proven" by modern science or that modern science doesn't contradict the science of the Bible for the most part, except in the case of creation. Whether or not I see it as one, I understand why it is such.

As for miracles, they are by definition anomalies by any scientific system that attempts to exclude religion in its explanations, like our modern day science. If you believe in the existence of God (who is omnipotent), then you know that God can by definition bend nature to His will. Therefore, not an important issue.

Unless you see the laws of Nature not as subject to God's will but rather as extensions of it, that is. (God's will being synonymous with his nature here.) By that logic, miracles are not contraventions of Natural Law—God being unwilling, or some would say unable, to violate his own will/nature—but rather aspects of the universe that are currently, although not ultimately, beyond our ability to comprehend. In other words, they do not violate the laws of Nature, just our limited understanding of them.

Apologies, by the way, for the odd capitalizations. I'm not trying to be pretentious; I'm just trying to make a clear distinction between two the different definitions of 'nature' that I'm using here.


Yes, we have a separate thread for that. Still, I can't resist the temptation to direct you to the Project Steve website. Regardless of how evolutionary theory is perceived by the lay public, within the scientific community it is hardly a 'theory in crisis' as so many creationists like to assert.