Faith and Science - BioLogos

[St. SteVen]

Interesting YouTube channel brings science and faith together.
This playlist has ten short videos. Each one between 2 and 4 minutes in length.
Let's discuss. Thanks.

 

[Windmillcharge]

Interesting YouTube channel brings science and faith together.
This playlist has ten short videos. Each one between 2 and 4 minutes in length.
Let's discuss.

First Post a summary of the video.
2nd a basic ground rule, If there is a disagreement between science and the bible, we go with what the Bible says.

 

[Triumph1300]

Watch "Reasons to believe" by Hugh Ross.

See my next post.

 

[Triumph1300]

Watch this:

Hugh Ross (astrophysicist) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Windmillcharge]

Watch this:

Hugh Ross (astrophysicist) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

two reasons not to.
1, no summary posted.
2, Creating Confusion in Genesis with Hugh Ross
explains very clearly why he and those daft enough not to believe what the bible says are wrong.

 

[Deborah_]

First Post a summary of the video.
2nd a basic ground rule, If there is a disagreement between science and the bible, we go with what the Bible says.

The disagreement isn't between science and the Bible, but between science and a particular interpretation of part of the Bible (the early chapters of Genesis). So don't be in such a hurry to condemn the science.

The Bible contains many types of literature, not all of which are intended to be taken "literally". And there are good reasons for thinking that the first few chapters of Genesis are of the non-literal type.

 

[St. SteVen]

Watch "Reasons to believe" by Hugh Ross.

See my next post.

Was this what you meant to post for a link?

 

[Jericho]

Science was born in Christian West (and maybe because of it). Many of the early scientists were Christian (Pascal, Galileo, Isaac Newton, etc.). True science is just the study of the natural world. The bible deals with the supernatural world. They deal with two seperate domains and thus shouldn't fall into conflict. It goes astray when people get into scientism, which believes science alone can render truth about the world and reality.

 

[Jericho]

two reasons not to.
1, no summary posted.
2, Creating Confusion in Genesis with Hugh Ross
explains very clearly why he and those daft enough not to believe what the bible says are wrong.

I don't agree with Hugh on every single thing. For instance, he believes Noah's flood was local and not global. Okay, I disagree but no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. None of us are going to agree on everything 100% and that's okay. He has a lot of good info from a scientific perspective and no doubt has won many to Christ.

 

[Jack]

The Bible defies 'science'.

 

[marks]

The disagreement isn't between science and the Bible, but between science and a particular interpretation of part of the Bible (the early chapters of Genesis). So don't be in such a hurry to condemn the science.

The Bible contains many types of literature, not all of which are intended to be taken "literally". And there are good reasons for thinking that the first few chapters of Genesis are of the non-literal type.

But not even the "science" supports itself.

Dating rocks is not consistent, with rocks formed in modern times dating millions of years old. We find unfossilized specimens of species declared extinct millions and millions of years ago. Erosion declared to take millions and millions of years has been observed to happen virtually overnight. I could go on and on with this.

The Grand Canyon upper layers are "millions of years" older then the bottom-most layers. Mt. St. Helen gave us tons of data. The trees at the bottom of Spirit Lake, the canyon carved by it's overflow.

But if you use the Bible as your starting point all the science actually fits. The Grand Canyon was carved by the overflow of the Grand Lake after the flood. You can see the pattern of that from space. The ancient waterline, the point where it broke through and drained out.

There is just so much of this.

When you start with the Bible, you can make sense of the 'science'. When you start with the 'science', you have to make a mash of Scripture.

I don't find any good reason to think creation took longer than 6 days as we know them. Is there one?

Much love!

 

[Windmillcharge]

The disagreement isn't between science and the Bible, but between science and a particular interpretation of part of the Bible (the early chapters of Genesis). So don't be in such a hurry to condemn the science.

The Bible contains many types of literature, not all of which are intended to be taken "literally". And there are good reasons for thinking that the first few chapters of Genesis are of the non-literal type.

I have to disagree, the problem is twofold.
1 a question of authority. Is the bible really God's word or not.
When there is a dispute between the bible and the conclusions of largely atheistic scientists, what is believed. In the case of genesis, with a 6 day creation, a global flood and a division of language, do Christians be.ief the bible or what men say is " scientific " ?
2. It is a belief or lack of belief in a creator 1st cause.
Science actual points to the universe having a beginning.


This logically indicates that there is a creator, yet science is resolutely materialistic denying that anything apart from the material can exist.

 

[Deborah_]

I have to disagree, the problem is twofold.
1 a question of authority. Is the bible really God's word or not.
When there is a dispute between the bible and the conclusions of largely atheistic scientists, what is believed. In the case of genesis, with a 6 day creation, a global flood and a division of language, do Christians be.ief the bible or what men say is " scientific " ?
2. It is a belief or lack of belief in a creator 1st cause.
Science actual points to the universe having a beginning.


This logically indicates that there is a creator, yet science is resolutely materialistic denying that anything apart from the material can exist.

Hmm... Why are atheistic scientists (like Richard Dawkins) so keen to interpret Genesis 1 in the most literal way possible - and why do so many Christians feel the need to agree with them?
Actually, Christians have always had differences of opinion over Genesis 1. St Augustine of Hippo (the great theologian of the Trinity) in the 4th century, thought that it was non-literal (because light was created before the sun). It's not that modern Christians are suddenly kow-towing to science.

 

[Deborah_]

Dating rocks is not consistent, with rocks formed in modern times

What rocks have been formed in "modern times"? How do you define "modern"?

We find unfossilized specimens of species declared extinct millions and millions of years ago.

No species was "declared" extinct millions of years ago. Extinction is assumed if there are no modern specimens known, but then obviously if one turns up the scientists change their minds! Bear in mind that only a tiny proportion of all the animals and plants that have ever existed end up being fossilised - the fossil record isn't complete enough to make such pronouncements.

By the way, I believe that the Earth is millions of years old, that human beings are hundreds of thousands of years old, and that Genesis does not contradict this.

I know the Bible well, and Genesis actually says very little - not enough to erect a whole scientific theory on.

 

[Behold]

Actually, Christians have always had differences of opinion over Genesis 1.

It should be the case that even a (Atheist) Scientist, would be able to believe that you can't have Creation without a Creator.
And that does not just apply to the supposed "Big Bang" Theory.

Can a book write itself?
Can a song write itself?
Can a Oil Painting paint itself?
Can a Automobile create itself?
A Jet Airliner?
The Titanic?

Sure, you can PROGRAM AI to create, but, AI was also CREATED and you have to program it.

Also....Did the universe Create itself?

It takes a lot more faith to believe that matter spontaneously created itself out of blank nothingness, then it takes simple faith to look around and see the order of the universe and the beauty of creation, as a incredibly impressive Divine Hand.

And reader, if you need something more to help you invest faith in God... In Christ.

Then might i point out, that every day, there is a beautiful sunset where you are...
Have you seen one lately?
You should go look for one...
And here is the thing.. .. only YOU, the HUMAN Being, made in the image of God, perceives BEAUTY.

A snake, does not perceive a beautiful sunset., nor does a cat, a rat, a fox, a hound, a pig, nor a honey bee.

Why is that?
Because God created beauty.....as He is a Divine ARTIST, who sees BEAUTY as Creation... and we are manifesting this same insight, when we perceive beauty.
This SEEING BEAUTY, is a "God thing"... And God only gives that PERCEPTION, to "let us make man in OUR Image".

 

[marks]

What rocks have been formed in "modern times"? How do you define "modern"?

At Mt. St. Helen, for instance.

I know the Bible well, and Genesis actually says very little - not enough to erect a whole scientific theory on.

The Law of the Sabbath tells me plainly that the earth and everything in it was created in 6 days, that are alike the 7th day of rest.

Exodus 20:11 KJV
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Much love!

 

[marks]

No species was "declared" extinct millions of years ago. Extinction is assumed if there are no modern specimens known, but then obviously if one turns up the scientists change their minds!

I thought they considered dinosaurs to be extinct millions of year ago. No?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Bear in mind that only a tiny proportion of all the animals and plants that have ever existed end up being fossilised - the fossil record isn't complete enough to make such pronouncements.

Um, how could this actually be known? Isn't that like "proving a negative"?

Much love!

 

[Jack]

I knew a man who taught evolution in college. He finally realized that evolution is a total hoax. He got saved!

 

[Windmillcharge]

Hmm... Why are atheistic scientists (like Richard Dawkins) so keen to interpret Genesis 1 in the most literal way possible - and why do so many Christians feel the need to agree with them?
Actually, Christians have always had differences of opinion over Genesis 1. St Augustine of Hippo (the great theologian of the Trinity) in the 4th century, thought that it was non-literal (because light was created before the sun). It's not that modern Christians are suddenly kow-towing to science.

Because they understand the literature is written as history and is to be taken seriously.

Non they started know towing at the end of the 19th century.