Jump to content

For Sarae: Christianity Compatible with Science of the Age of the Earth, Evolution etc.

exchemist
in Religion

Featured Replies

@exchemist https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbZaILgnjBOBiXFM_l_fOR-pTiedKORWL&si=V4azAJJGRHH1mHH5

That's the link I copied for the playlist. I only watched the first one about interpreting Genesis scientifically. Oh yeah, about all of those lion farms you saw...yeah it's kinda hard to find him with a channel name search haha. I typed in "paleolithic Africa" and his video popped up.

Also, can we not get so violent in here? Science and religion-specifically christianity- can go together. I understand there are questions no one can answer yet, but let's not be angry at each other. Instead, discuss things civilly or this forum will go to the trashcan. There's too many good discussions happening for that.

  • Author
53 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@exchemist https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbZaILgnjBOBiXFM_l_fOR-pTiedKORWL&si=V4azAJJGRHH1mHH5

That's the link I copied for the playlist. I only watched the first one about interpreting Genesis scientifically. Oh yeah, about all of those lion farms you saw...yeah it's kinda hard to find him with a channel name search haha. I typed in "paleolithic Africa" and his video popped up.

Also, can we not get so violent in here? Science and religion-specifically christianity- can go together. I understand there are questions no one can answer yet, but let's not be angry at each other. Instead, discuss things civilly or this forum will go to the trashcan. There's too many good discussions happening for that.

No one is getting “violent”. However it is important not to have threads derailed by silly distractions. It is part of the discipline of critical thinking to be able to stay on topic and make one’s arguments and questions clear.

The video you linked to is over 2hrs long so I’m not going to watch it. However from the short description it looks like rubbish to me. “real genetics and science [sic] does not support Big Bang evolution theory” sounds like hopeless nonsense.

But shouldn’t it have been obvious to you that this kind of stuff is not what I am recommending to you, but the polar opposite? Why did you suggest it?

21 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No one is getting “violent”. However it is important not to have threads derailed by silly distractions. It is part of the discipline of critical thinking to be able to stay on topic and make one’s arguments and questions clear.

The video you linked to is over 2hrs long so I’m not going to watch it. However from the short description it looks like rubbish to me. “real genetics and science [sic] does not support Big Bang evolution theory” sounds like hopeless nonsense.

But shouldn’t it have been obvious to you that this kind of stuff is not what I am recommending to you, but the polar opposite? Why did you suggest it?

Well, I thought it was okay because he seemed to not be biased when combining things and making them make sense in both a biblical and scientific sense, but maybe that was the way my brain processed it while I was barely functioning on like 4hrs of sleep (I have insomnia). Then again, I watched it and asked questions before you told me it was likely nonsense.

  • Author
13 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

Well, I thought it was okay because he seemed to not be biased when combining things and making them make sense in both a biblical and scientific sense, but maybe that was the way my brain processed it while I was barely functioning on like 4hrs of sleep (I have insomnia). Then again, I watched it and asked questions before you told me it was likely nonsense.

OK. Have you read the Biologos link I sent you? Suggest you look at that and come back with any comments or questions.

  • Author
14 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@exchemist I read it. It said that humans came long after many animals, so we weren't the very first creatures here. Now that I think about it, the bible says birds and sea creatures come before us, so it's possible there are creatures older than people.

You are not getting it, are you?

Just now, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@exchemist I read it. It said that humans came long after many animals, so we weren't the very first creatures here. Now that I think about it, the bible says birds and sea creatures come before us, so it's possible there are creatures older than people.

Remember what I said about reading the Bible in the light of what we now know today ?

OK so here is your chance to do some critical thinking of your own.

There are many references to plants and animals in the Bible and indeed in other ancient teachings.

Today we know that plants and animals are made of many many many cells.

We also know that there are simpler creatures that are made of only one cell.

Why do you think the Bible has no references whatsoever to single cell creatures ?

Please not I am not saying it is wrong. It is not wrong it just says nothing whatsoever about them.

Edited by studiot

Unless Sara lives in one of those school districts where Right-wing fundamentalist Christians are hijacking the science curriculum, I would have some hope that a high school biology course would dispel some of this confusion. I would also recommend Philip Whitfield's "From So Simple a Beginning" as a fine intro. Most libraries will have this, unless the book burners have got there already.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Unless Sara lives in one of those school districts where Right-wing fundamentalist Christians are hijacking the science curriculum, I would have some hope that a high school biology course would dispel some of this confusion. I would also recommend Philip Whitfield's "From So Simple a Beginning" as a fine intro. Most libraries will have this, unless the book burners have got there already.

Haha okay. I wish I would've seen this because I JUST left the library! Oh well, I'll be back. I'm also thinking of taking biology by myself; I don't like the way school teaches and it moves too slowly. I also need individualized learning (obviously 'cause look at how dumb I am lol).

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Remember what I said about reading the Bible in the light of what we now know today ?

OK so here is your chance to do some critical thinking of your own.

There are many references to plants and animals in the Bible and indeed in other ancient teachings.

Today we know that plants and animals are made of many many many cells.

We also know that there are simpler creatures that are made of only one cell.

Why do you think the Bible has no references whatsoever to single cell creatures ?

Please not I am not saying it is wrong. It is not wrong it just says nothing whatsoever about them.

It's okay you don't need to fear for your life 😄 I won't be mad if you said it was. But maybe the reason it isn't mentioned is because the people in professions like doctors and healers didn't know about them?

    • 1
    Just now, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

    It's okay you don't need to fear for your life 😄 I won't be mad if you said it was. But maybe the reason it isn't mentioned is because the people in professions like doctors and healers didn't know about them?

    Thank you for answering, my questions are designed to be helpful.

    And although you have not quite hit the bullseye you are near the centre of the target.

    Good thinking +1

    The simple reason is that no one, not just doctors etc had seen or known of or thought of a single cell until more than a thousand years after the bible was writtten, when microscopes were invented.

    So no writer could have written about them before that.

    Now this is important because it shows there is no conflict there between Science and the Bible.

    And my advice is to look for agreement and compatibility, not division and opposition.

    The Bible does not always agrees with itself but then again nor does Science always agree with itself either.

    •
    1
    Just now, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

    Okay, so if I have a question I should look for both biblical and scientific answers for a better pov?

    Yes why not ?

    But you have you use your intelligence, whether you consider it natural or god given, to asses what you find.

    For example I Kings VII 23 is in perfect harmony with Science, whereas Revelation 13 : 18 is just theatrical drama to create awe in the reader.

    Pi.jpg

    •
    1
    20 hours ago, swansont said:

    Where is the evidence that it’s a math error? The implication here is that you’d get ~4.5 billion years if you did the math correctly. Somehow I don’t think that’s the issue.

    my post wasn't meant to be taken litterally.

    23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Who taught you to be?

    Someone who didn't understand religion or someone who didn't understand science?

    The issue, as I see it, is that a genuine attempt to understand is more important than the 'ism one is brought up on.

    12 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

    Okay, so if I have a question I should look for both biblical and scientific answers for a better pov?

    You should look for anything, that helps you to think of a better question.

    5 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Perhaps you could tone down the BS, then. Grownups are trying to have a conversation.

    And kids should be seen and not heard, sorry pops...

    1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

    And kids should be seen and not heard, sorry pops...

    Kids can speak up if they can do so in good faith and add to the conversation, which you admitted to not doing.

    16 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

    Okay, so if I have a question I should look for both biblical and scientific answers for a better pov?

    Give us a few examples of the sort of questions you have in mind.

    11 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

    @pinball1970

    1. Was the earth really all water in the beginning?

    2. Was Eden real or metaphorical?

    3. Who created linguistic systems that we use today?

    You know? Stuff we would have to deep dive for.

    The Bible is certainly very useful regarding question three, scholars read the manuscripts that make up the Bible we know today and ancient Hebrew would be one of those.

    Cuneiform is the oldest written language (IIRC) and there are connections to stories in the Bible via tablet recovered in Iraq in the 19th Century.

    Any ancient text is important to a historian and linguist.

    Eden? A kernel of truth maybe? The fertile crescent?

    The Bible says "the deeps" yes? Genesis 1. No the universe had no water at the beginning.

    If the earth had water when it was formed it was sequestered in the rock.

    A quick addition, I was taught that meteors brought water to the earth.

    This paper suggests it was already here.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103525001356

    •
    1
    21 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

    Hey, quick question: does anyone know how humans get species names? I thought we were classified by race and ethnicity.

    Species names for us modern humans? We are all Homo sapiens sapiens, all other Homo species are extinct

    As for the who I would check out the father of the Latin binomial system of species nomenclature and taxonomy Carl Linnaeus.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_the_human_species

    Edited by pinball1970

    4 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

    Species names for us modern humans? We are all Homo sapiens sapiens, all other Homo species are extinct

    As for the who I would check out the father of the Latin binomial system of species nomenclature and taxonomy Carl Linnaeus.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_the_human_species

    Sorry the site wasn't working for me for awhile. I know Carl Linnaeus. I didn't know he made names for us too! I thought we were all homo sapiens...

    6 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

    Sorry the site wasn't working for me for awhile. I know Carl Linnaeus. I didn't know he made names for us too! I thought we were all homo sapiens...

    My login was out too last night for a while.

    Do not forget that Linnaeus would have been working with extant species not fossils of extinct species.

    So morphologically speaking he knew we belonged to the ape family, he was not aware of all the other Homo species or Australopithecus species. They were not discovered until 19th and 20th Centuries, over 100 years after his death.

    Genesis names man of course too, Adam and the word is derived from the similar words for "earth " which is "Adamah," as god fashions him from the ground.

    Scholars agree pretty much that there are two creation stories spliced together. That is another thread I think, interesting in its own right.

    Edited by pinball1970

    • 2
    Just now, pinball1970 said:

    Scholars agree pretty much that there are two creation stories spliced together. That is another thread I think, interesting in its own right.

    You are doing exactly what I recommend. Trying to pick the bones of the matter out of several mixed up reports, +1

    •
    1

    Please sign in to comment

    You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

    Sign In Now
    https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/136024-for-sarae-christianity-compatible-with-science-of-the-age-of-the-earth-evolution-etc/
    Go to topic listing

    Important Information

    We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

    Configure browser push notifications
    Chrome (Android)
    1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
    2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
    3. Adjust your preference.
    Chrome (Desktop)
    1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
    2. Select Site settings.
    3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.