Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Community logo

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23) In reply Jesus declared, I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. (John 3:3) Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6) That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. (Romans 10:9-11)
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4  5 

 
DigiDenny Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Scribe

Registered: 12-2006
Posts: 11
WARM FUZZY POINTS: 0 (+0/-0)
list_reply | Quote
Re: Science and the Bible


Mel i love that science then science now article thats was very interesting
12/26/2006, 9:40 am Link to this post send email  to DigiDenny   send pm to DigiDenny
 
Order ofMelchizedek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 1876
WARM FUZZY POINTS: 27 (+28/-1)
list_reply | Quote
Re: Science and the Bible


Thanks! I found all of these in the Evidence Bible. There's a link to the online version in the first post.
It's full of great information.
 emoticon


---

"All of Your goodness, the blood You have shed, the cross I now remember, lest I forget" -RSJ

12/26/2006, 3:24 pm Link to this post send pm to Order ofMelchizedek
 
DigiDenny Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Scribe

Registered: 12-2006
Posts: 11
WARM FUZZY POINTS: 0 (+0/-0)
list_reply | Quote
Re: Science and the Bible


mel you believe in a young earth right>?

if so can you give me some good argument i can use againt this science guy im dealing with on another forum, i really am not very familiar with the theorys, but i dont believe the earth is billions of years old
12/29/2006, 7:54 am Link to this post send email  to DigiDenny   send pm to DigiDenny
 
Order ofMelchizedek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 1876
WARM FUZZY POINTS: 27 (+28/-1)
list_reply | Quote
Re: Science and the Bible


Hmm, I'm not so sure I have any kind of proof or argument, but I don't believe the earth is billions of years old either.
Scientists have been wrong before, but there is no archaeological evidence that has conclusively contradicted the Bible. Some have actually proven it, as you can see from the articles in the Evidence Bible.

Try these links out for more info on the young earth debate.

http://www.drdino.com/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.carm.org/


---

"All of Your goodness, the blood You have shed, the cross I now remember, lest I forget" -RSJ

12/29/2006, 9:41 am Link to this post send pm to Order ofMelchizedek
 
Staybrite Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 07-2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 985
WARM FUZZY POINTS: 27 (+28/-1)
list_reply | Quote
Re: Science and the Bible


One logical argument you can use (and it isn't even really biblical) has to do with the age of rocks (elements).
Carbon dating uses a system to determine the age of an object by basically measuring the amount of the radioactive isotope Carbon 13. It decays at a known rate so the amount of decay (of the carbon 13) in the object can give its relative age.

Most scientists believe the earth is billions of years old because carbon dating has shown some rocks to be billions of years old. They are inferring that since the rocks are that old, then the earth also must be that old. This is flawed logic. There is nothing that says God did not assemble the earth from elements he created earlier (again this isn't biblical).

Using this flawed "carbon dating" logic we could infer that my car is thousands of years old. Just take a sample of the metal. Likely it is thousand's of years old (on an elemental level). Iron forged below the earth under great pressure etc. This iron was mined and converted into steel and used to make my car. Therefore the metal in my car could be thousands of years old. Using the same logic used to deterring the age of the earth, my car must be thousands of years old. Even though I know it was manufactured in 1993.

Hope that made sense. Just one of those small suppositions that people make that could very well be flawed, just because modern science can "prove" a rock to be millions (perhaps billions) of years old does not automatically prove the age of the earth.

btw I didn't make this up, I heard it from a university professer who was not a Christian.

---
Peace, that brief period in history when everyone stops to reload.
12/29/2006, 9:43 am Link to this post send email  to Staybrite   send pm to Staybrite
 
DigiDenny Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Scribe

Registered: 12-2006
Posts: 11
WARM FUZZY POINTS: 0 (+0/-0)
list_reply | Quote
Re: Science and the Bible


thanks but this guy isnt worth debating, he just claims everyone who doesnt believe what he believes is a lier and they say the earth is young just for grants and money
12/29/2006, 12:11 pm Link to this post send email  to DigiDenny   send pm to DigiDenny
 
Order ofMelchizedek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 1876
WARM FUZZY POINTS: 27 (+28/-1)
list_reply | Quote
Re: Science and the Bible


 emoticon Here's one for your friend.

“Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.” Science magazine, vol. 224, 1984

Maybe he can explain that one.

In the end, the Bible doesn't tell us how old the earth is, and it really doesn't matter to me one way or another. I certainly don't believe it's billions of years old, but so what if it is? emoticon

I don't know how I missed this one, but here's another excellent quote straight outa the Evidence Bible.

Evolutionary Fraud.

“Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist, announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England… Dawson’s announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old ) the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin’s missing link had been identified.
“Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then , in the early fifties … scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal; Piltdown Man was a hoax. Radiocarbon tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year old orangutan from the East Indies.” -Our Times: The Illustrated History of the 20th Century

The Piltdown Man fraud wasn’t an isolated incident. The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth.
The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. Java Man is now regarded as fully human. Heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it’s similar to that of modern man. Still many evolutionists believe that he’s 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with carbon dating. However, Time magazine (June 11, 1990 ) published a science article subtitled, “Geologitst show that carbon dating can be way off.” And don’t look to Neanderthal Man for any evidence of evolution. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he spoke and was artistic and religious.

Huh, how about that? Go figure. There's no "missing link," the whole chain is missing!
The Bible has never been proven wrong. emoticon


Last edited by Order ofMelchizedek, 12/29/2006, 12:58 pm


---

"All of Your goodness, the blood You have shed, the cross I now remember, lest I forget" -RSJ

12/29/2006, 12:56 pm Link to this post send pm to Order ofMelchizedek
 
Order ofMelchizedek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 1876
WARM FUZZY POINTS: 27 (+28/-1)
list_reply | Quote
Re: Science and the Bible


OOH, I was just reading about some "last days prophecies". I'll have to post some of them when I get a chance. Scary stuff.



---
I know who saved my soul and I want this world to know, that I was once blind, once lost, Now I'm blood bought, reconciled to God by the blood He shed on the cross. -Eternal M.o.G.
11/29/2007, 6:49 pm Link to this post send pm to Order ofMelchizedek
 
FiringOnAllFour Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Welcome Lurker

Registered: 01-2004
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 6
WARM FUZZY POINTS: 0 (+0/-0)
list_reply | Quote
Re: Science and the Bible


Hi guys. New to here.

Assuming that the first chapters of Gensis were used to explain the story of creation by illustrations to each new generation of hebrews, many hundreds of years before they were written down, here are a few questions.

What makes it wrong to suggest that God created mankind slowly through a gradual process of evolution over a very long period of time. Whats wrong with the idea of the earth being old? Whats wrong with the idea that God might have created the universe by means of a 'big bang'. After all, the universe is a wondrous creation, so why do we expect him to have rushed the job? God spends a whole lifetime building his people up, why not spend the lifetime of the earth developing it? What is so offensive about the idea that God could have made humans from early primates? Of course science requires faith too as we don't know all the answers, we all need faith in order to get up each day.
9/20/2008, 8:47 am Link to this post send email  to FiringOnAllFour   send pm to FiringOnAllFour MSN
 
Order ofMelchizedek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 1876
WARM FUZZY POINTS: 27 (+28/-1)
list_reply | Quote
Re: Science and the Bible


Well hello, FiringOnAllFour, welcome to UIC! emoticon

There are three links a few posts back on this page that can answer these questions much better than I can.
But to answer simply, the Bible states that God created all the animals and that they reproduce after their own kind. This means that it is not compatible with the idea that living things evolved slowly over time, turning into other kinds.

I don't know how old the earth is, but those who have studied it from a Biblical standpoint seem to think that it's much younger, probably due to the flaws in our dating methods. Again, those links would provide a much better and more in depth explanation for this thinking.

There is an online book (900 and some pages long ) that I've found very interesting. Chapter 2 is all about the problems with the big bang theory. Here's a link.
The Evolution Cruncher

Again, welcome to the board. I'm looking forward to discussing more of this with you in more detail.


---
Lord, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I’m not scared 'cause You’re holding my breath.
I only fear that I don’t have enough time left, to tell the world that there’s no time left. -G1C

9/21/2008, 1:30 pm Link to this post send pm to Order ofMelchizedek
 


add_a_reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5 





You are not logged in (login)