A classroom speech for your enjoyment-Science and the Bible

for intelligent conversation.

 

I was referring to this :

 

Hi Craig, don't believe I've ever seen you post. Your $0.02 is welcome!

 

Okay, allow me to clarify. All I said there was that Adam is the link, not that we jumped from primates to Adam.

It is theorized that there is a common link between man and primate. I see that connection like this.



C=Primates
T=Humans
A is the missing link, in which both C and T are theorized to come from.

My suggestion was that Adam could have been point A. After all, was he not made in likeness of God's image, and able to reproduce within his own gene pool without causing today's incestual deformities?

OR

Something before Adam could have been point A, and when God created Adam, he decided that was how humans would be. It's really open to any theory. We do not know that Adam was the first intelligent being to ever exist. Perhaps there was something greater than he.

 

So primates evolved from Adam too ?

That would make Adam less evolved than our current primates .

 

I have no idea. That is simply a suggestion to ponder, I could not possibly claim or prove it. Yes, in my speech and in this thread, I stated that I believe if Evolution were to tie into Christian accounts of creation, one certainly feasible way is that when Cain disobeyed God and God cursed his offspring, de-evolution of the generations produced by Cain occured. Even evolution states that, doesn't it? If we and primate both came from a common link, that link could be more intelligent than primates, no?

Thus... de-evolution fits into the evolutionary theory. And to clear up any misunderstanding of evolution, this image is not correct, also stated in my speech.


This image is a large misconception of how evolution works.

 

No , I don't think humans and primates devolved from a common more evolved ancestor , that doesn't really make sense with how evolution works

 

Very well, I answered your question. My speech is not about reforming the theory of evolution, (Not that there is any proof about it to claim a truth for either of our beliefs, mind you) it is about suggesting how the evolutionary theory could fit in with the Biblical account of creation.

This speech is not about proving the Bible right, it is about clearing up misconceptions of the Bible. I will state this once more, before the speech, 13 of 16 people thought the Bible was rendered inaccurate due to scientific findings. After the speech, only 3 of 16 still felt that way.

The point is many people flock to science disproving the Bible because of what we hear from inaccurate sources, and if one were to actually research these things for himself, he would find that there is actually (largely) nothing in the Bible that contradicts any scientific proof or theory. This a speech of perspective and an open minded approach to science and the Bible.

Please don't forget the links I added where Biblical writings made claims not scientifically discovered until hundreds of years later.

 

Homer has the popcorn if you don't mind sharing

 

I did look into your links last time we talked , I found this interesting too

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eternal_Productions:_101_Scientific_Facts_and_Foreknowledge

 

I read the first few of those- Interesting indeed, but the responses to the right far from debunk the left column in my opinion. The claims being made on that right column- at least in the first 4 or 5 that I read- seem a little weak, nitpicky, or almost irrelevant... For example, the bit about Noah's ark, they stated that there isn't an ideal ship size which takes credit away from the left column's claim that God revealed to Noah the perfect dimensions for the boat... Their premise was something along the lines of "different ships need different dimensions for different things"... It is obvious the Ark was a cargo ship and not a war ship... I think the credibility of that right column relies on making the reader think that the left column is irrational or misinterpreted, when really the claims of the right aren't all that strong...

I am positive that not every literal word of the Bible is in sync with current scientific knowledge, but I think that article (IF the other 95 claims follow the first 5) does a poor job of proving so.

"Instead, they say that Job is poetic, and should be read as the author intended its readers to read it." Is the most open ended and inconclusive line I see.

"The earth does not "hang" — it is caught in a gravitational pull and moves due to angular momentum" This is what I mean when I say nitpicky...

The common belief at that time was that the world rested on some turtles back, or something... And then in Job it states that the Earth "hangs upon nothing"... Sounds pretty scientifically correct to me given the belief at that time, he just used the word "nothing" rather than "cosmic dust and electromagnetic waves" and the response is to point out that space isn't technically made of nothing? This seems to be grasping at thin air to me... I find it a bit desperate.

Criticism aside, I'm sure there's some solid claims in that right column. But those seriously need to be given some analytic thought.

 

I agree to a point , but would counter that some of the passages that are supposed to prove scientific validity in the Bible are equally vague and open to interpretation and far from conclusive proof

 

I won't argue you there at all, there is not a doubt in my mind that creationist scientists/fanatic Christians/people trying to credit the Bible have taken passages out of context or provided their own interpretation that was just too much of a stretch. Not everything in the Bible can be used to prove it accurate. I think to try and make it a scientific material (Though it has been called a very accurate account of history by some scientists) is to try and make the Bible something it is not, and then you're doing what I mentioned earlier-grasping at air.

There are no doubt those who make false claims in favor of the Bible. And this is actually exactly what I was talking about when I said this:

 

There is a lot being said in that phrase. The subjects that can be covered and arguments started over the words: vague, interpretation, and conclusion.

 

Hi, FooBird. Would you like to elaborate?