Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
I agree, why would your average typical scientist try to prove or disprove the Bible? The Bible is nothing to science. So I have this question for ZNPaaneah - the bible does not seem to add anything novel or significant that can not be already obtained from the fossil record. So why do you need "fossil record + bible" ?
|
Really, an eyewitness account to the events "adds nothing"? To be able to get an accurate description of the events that corresponds to what we see in the fossil record helps us interpret what happened. We have never seen what happens when a meteorite of this magnitude hits the ocean. We can calculate the force, we can estimate the resulting tsunami, the resulting seismic impact, the resulting water sent into the atmosphere. But to hear the account of "40 days and nights" of rain gives us a detail we could never be able to discern from the fossil record. Do you realize we have two different scales for measuring earthquakes, one "the richter scale" is based on data we get from seismograms. But what about earthquakes that took place prior to the invention of a seismogram? For those we use written records, generally from monks. We can then correlate "church bells ringing" with a certain level on the richter scale, "some damage", "severe damage", etc. So instead of 80+ years of data we can now look at thousands of years of data and get much better picture of the pattern of earthquakes. Let's be honest, you don't really know anything about science do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
I believe your motivation is based upon the faulty assumption that proving the bible to be scientifically accurate means it is also spiritually accurate. There is nothing to say that the Bible cannot both be scientifically inaccurate and spiritually accurate.
|
Yes, you are working on a faulty assumption. I have determined, independently from any scientific evidence, that the Bible is true. Because I believe the Bible is spiritually true, the word of God, the word of the one who created the universe, I also believe that there is light and inspiration in the word that can help me in my scientific endeavors.
Several examples
1. I was at Rice university in the 70s, there was a scientist there going to Antarctica studying global warming (what we called it back then). At the time the prevailing thought was that this was a minor deal. But, when I read some verses in Revelation that was the first time I realized that global warming was going to be a really big issue.
2. Geologists did not really embrace the theory of plate tectonics until after the invention of sonar and the mapping of the ocean bottom after WWII. However, Paul referred to this in his epistles.
3. Likewise the Big Bang theory is a very modern theory only recently accepted, yet it also was described in the Bible.
4. Any geologist who read the account of Noah would immediately think it was impossible. Not just that there could have been a flood that big, but that it could have happened this recently without our knowledge. Yet, 30 years later it seems we have found so much evidence to support the account that it seems absurd for any credible scientist to dispute it anymore.
In the 70s scientists assumed all of these "myths" were fanciful imaginations based very, very loosely on reality. Today we have come to the conclusion that we need to reassess everything we once thought of as a "myth".
Augustine said that error is essential to who we are. I have found out more about who you, and Awareness and Zeek are from your error on this topic.
In fact, I would say this thread is essential to understanding who you are.