Posted on 08/27/2011 10:07:19 AM PDT by fishtank
National Public Radio recently interviewed Trinity Western University biologist Dennis Venema, who stated his belief that humans did not descend from Adam and Eve.1 Venema, an evangelical evolutionist, claimed that genetics studies show "there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple."2 Do the data really contradict the biblical account of human history?
"Given the genetic variation of people today, [Venema] says scientists can't get that [starting] population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history," NPR reported.2 But this claim fails for three reasons. First, it relies on the presumption of "evolutionary history," not scientific data. Second, the idea that an initial group of 10,000 humans evolved from primates is mathematically impossible. Third, a descent from Adam and Eve actually does explain the patterns in modern human genetics....
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I don’t think so.
ZULU 2011
John Leland: "The grenade is still in your own hand . . . . 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... Bye!"
We should note:
That said it's amazing, almost miraculous, how close some Biblical explanations come to those of modern science -- especially considering that no writer or editor of the Bible had any vague notion of scientific ideas like E=MC2 or the Big Bang.
And yet, in Genesis we learn that in the beginning, God said, "let there be light," and there was light -- precisely the beginning that science now tries to describe in such great detail.
We also learn that God did not create everything instantaneously, all at the same time, but rather, He did it step by step, first things first -- the heavens, the earth, then plants, then animals and last of all, humans.
Pretty good, I'd say, considering those folks knew nothing about real science.
And compared to other ancient religious documents which have metaphors inside of metaphors sitting on top of other metaphors -- makes the Bible seem almost clinical by contrast.
So people want to quibble that the Bible and science don't use exactly the same language?
That's because they are addressing wholly opposite subjects: science is strictly material while the Bible is entirely directed towards the human soul, and it's fate -- our salvation.
So it's irrelevant to the Bible whether science agrees word-for-word.
But despite that, what's truly amazing is how closely they do correspond.
>>> We also learn that God did not create everything instantaneously, all at the same time, but rather, He did it step by step, first things first — the heavens, the earth, then plants, then animals and last of all, humans.
In the hills around Bethlehem as they were sitting around the campfire on a dark chilly night, the story teller could have said “Then God spoke and in an instant there was the earth and the stars and the beasts of the fields, etc” but that would have ended the performance pretty quickly. The audience doesn’t get their full measure of entertainment and diversion.
On the other hand if you recite lists and sequences, you draw out the show. This also lets you build to a climax. Dramatically it’s the most satisfying way to construct the story. Lacking cable as an alternative, you do what you have to do to hold the audience.
Great post!
I was told by a professor at my university (a small Christian university in WA State) that science tells us how, the Bible tells us why. They’ll agree on the “big picture” because they’re describing the same overall thing (as you point out) - but they’ll focus on different details because they deal with different aspects of creation.
Using one to explain the other’s realm gets you into all kinds of trouble.
Leave scient to science, and religion to religion.
So, I take it, you're trying to explain to us how modern scientists are just Mod 2 versions of ancient story tellers?
;-)
The "Big Bang" never happened, but that the earliest of mankind after Adam's day didn't have access to very advanced science is merely a presumption.
How would anyone prove that before Noah's day there were not men, who walked with God, to whom God had given knowledge that would frizz Einstein's hair?
Only in your fantasy parallel Universe.
In the real Universe, which we can discover through science, the "Big Bang" is more than a scientific hypothesis, it is a many-times confirmed theory.
The exact nature of the "Big Bang" or potentially multiple "mini-bangs", as the case may prove to be, is subject to investigation and hypotheses.
Of course, you are free to deny whatever you wish, but in this case, denying a "Big Bang" means denying much of modern science.
John Leland 1789: "...that the earliest of mankind after Adam's day didn't have access to very advanced science is merely a presumption."
More than a "presumption", a reasonable conclusion based on the complete lack of physical evidence supporting such a claim.
Again, you are free to fantasize whatever you wish, but in this case, given the lack of evidence, your fantasies will not be taken seriously by most others.
and . . .
He created the earth, before He created any other cellestial body. The EARTH was created before there was our sun or any other star or planet.
So, there was NO big bang.
The big bang is coming in the future (2 Peter ch. 3)
As long as we understand that such statements refer to spiritual matters, and have nothing to do with actual science, then I don't have a problem with it.
The problem only starts if you insist that the Bible is somehow "scientific".
In fact, the Bible is the opposit of science, since science is concerned only with material causes and effects, and builds from physical evidence; while the Bible is Revealed Truth whose purpose is to explain to very ignorant human beings the path of spiritual salvation.
So more-or-less, the Bible begins where science stops, and visa versa.
No, not too spiritual. Spiritual includes angels, Satan, other cherubim, seraphim, souls, spirits, God Himself, etc.
The earth and other planets, our sun and other stars are physical and material.
All of it has to do with science, both the physical and the spiritual; and because you will take God's word on matters for NEITHER the physical or spiritual, you are actually missing the greater portion of scientific truth.
It is scientific fact, that which those who reject God's word on creation can not fathom, that God hung the earth upon nothing, and then four 24 hour periods later, God put the Sun, the earth's moon, and the other lights in the firmament of the heaven (what is usually called, "outer space").
I'll say it again: by definition of the word "science" there is no -- zero, zip, nada, not one word of -- scientific theory which begins with the Revealed Word of God.
To say that another way: by definition no Revealed Truth can be accepted in scientific terms until or unless it has been confirmed by scientific methods.
That's because what we're talking about here is scientific methodological naturalism -- not to be confused or conflated into philosophical naturalism, which it's not.
Again, by definition, science only deals with the natural world using scientific methods.
John Leland 1789: "It is scientific fact, that which those who reject God's word on creation can not fathom, that God hung the earth upon nothing, and then four 24 hour periods later, God put the Sun, the earth's moon, and the other lights in the firmament of the heaven (what is usually called, "outer space")."
That may be a spiritual or religious "fact", it could conceivably even be Truth, but regardless, it will never, ever be a scientific fact, since by definition science deals only with those natural phenomena which can be studied with scientific methods.
Well, that's the problem: it is you saying it and not God.
" . . . of the word "science" there is no -- zero, zip, nada, not one word of -- scientific theory which begins with the Revealed Word of God."
That is because we're not dealing with scientific theory in the Revealed Word of God, but instead with scientific truth.
"To say that another way: by definition no Revealed Truth can be accepted in scientific terms until or unless it has been confirmed by scientific methods."
To say it even better: no scientific terms can be trusted, and certainly fail as to final authority, which have not been confirmed consistent with the Revealed Word of God.
" . . . scientific methodological naturalism . . . "
Oh! Well then 'SMN' is absolutely useless in the end run.
"Again, by definition, science only deals with the natural world using scientific methods."
Accept God's Word on Creation literally from Genesis chapter 1 and God will open up your scientific methods beyond anything you can imagine possible.
So, well repeat: "It is scientific fact, that which those who reject God's word on creation can not fathom, that God hung the earth upon nothing, and then four 24 hour periods later, God put the Sun, the earth's moon, and the other lights in the firmament of the heaven (what is usually called, "outer space")."
" . . . .by definition science deals only with those natural phenomena which can be studied with scientific methods."
So, macro-evolution is certainly ruled out.
I understand that you wish to redefine the word "science" to suit your own theological convictions, but your definition is really the opposite of what the scientific method has been understood to mean, as far back as ancient Egyptians and Greeks.
So I'd suggest to you that redefining words to suit your own needs, while entirely common in politics, is not really acceptable in a field where the goal is set as "truth".
In short you need to be honest enough to admit that the word "science" is what you oppose, not propose.
John Leland 1789: "That is because we're not dealing with scientific theory in the Revealed Word of God, but instead with scientific truth."
All you're doing is playing word games.
Science does not deal in "truth" directly.
The language of science begins with "confirmed observations = facts" and "hypotheses = unconfirmed explanations of facts" and "theories = confirmed hypotheses".
So the word "truth" does not play a direct role in science, except in a generalized, abstract philosophical sense.
And even then the subject is debated, not asserted unconditionally.
All of which makes the definition of "science" the opposite of your Revealed Truth.
John Leland 1789: "To say it even better: no scientific terms can be trusted, and certainly fail as to final authority, which have not been confirmed consistent with the Revealed Word of God."
Here's where you are wrong: science itself is the only authority on what is, or is not, science.
You personally lack any valid authority -- biblical or otherwise -- to claim that your religion is itself "science."
And what science says is science is summarized by the words methodological naturalism and the scientific method.
These have nothing to do with "absolute Truth" -- that's why scientific conclusions are subject to change as the evidence warrants.
And every day there are stories in the news about some old scientific understanding which has just been overthrown by new data.
That's just what science does -- that's how science works.
So, whether science conforms to your personal understanding of Revealed Truth is irrelevant to science.
Science will continue to do what science does.
But science never was, and never will be in the business of saving souls -- that's your church's business.
It just seems to me highly unseemly that you would feel it necessary to lie about science in order to get on with your own work.
John Leland 1789: "Oh! Well then 'SMN' is absolutely useless in the end run."
Sure, no individual person's scientific understandings can survive his or her physical demise, but science itself will continue, as long as there are people with curious minds and the courage to challenge accepted wisdom.
John Leland 1789: "Accept God's Word on Creation literally from Genesis chapter 1 and God will open up your scientific methods beyond anything you can imagine possible."
Yes, many Christian believers are also scientists and doubtless do excellent scientific work.
So science and faith are not incompatible.
John Leland 1789: "So, well repeat: "It is scientific fact, that which those who reject God's word on creation can not fathom..."
More word games.
Science cannot admit or "fathom" what is not based on confirmed observations and confirmed hypotheses.
Your dramatic descriptions of creation fail science's tests.
John Leland 1789: "So, macro-evolution is certainly ruled out."
I say there is no such thing as "macro-evolution" in the sense you use it -- that the term itself is simply a weapon used by anti-evolutionists against the theory of evolution.
Instead, what there is, in reality, are evolution facts and evolution theory and many evolution related hypotheses.
The facts of evolution include: 1) descent with modification and 2) natural selection (aka "survival of the fittest").
Evolution theory simply projects these facts backwards in time millions and billions of years to arrive at common ancestors for all, or nearly all, life on Earth.
And that is theory not just hypothesis because it is confirmed by many facts, including the fossil record, DNA analyses and inputs from virtually every other branch of science.
Evolution hypotheses include speculations on the origins of life itself, speculations such as abiogenisis, panspermia and Intelligent Design.
None of these hypotheses have been confirmed, and the latter two are not even testable scientifically.
So, yes, I rule out your use of the term "macro-evolution" because your use of it is not useful scientifically.
If you really want to learn true science, then I would suggest that instead of conforming your use of words to "science falsely so called" (Bible; NT; 1 Timothy 6:20), which includes those hypotheses and theories, which deny the literalness of the Scriptures (any and all such all the way back to the Greeks and Egyptians), but that you accept the Genesis account of creation literally and sequentially, as given by the inspiration of God.
Accept the Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, personally, as your only hope of eternal life. Then He will teach you true science, as you submit your will to Him, and to His words as the final Authority in science, history, philosophy, war, peace, . . . . and any other subject that can be listed on a sheet of paper by the hand of man.
King James Translation, 1 Timothy 6:20: "20 Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith."NIV Translation: "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith."
Note that what the old King James translates as "science", NIV says "knowledge," -- and it's clearly a reference to false knowledge, or science, so has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
John Leland 1789: "but that you accept the Genesis account of creation literally and sequentially, as given by the inspiration of God."
Those are your words, not God's, and you are not being truthful about the word "science."
You should stop doing that.
Precisely why the NIV should be thrown out. It is a perversion, from apostate Alexandrian manuscripts, used of Satan to water down and attack the Word of God.
Only the old King James translates Paul's word as "science", which then barely existed as we know it today, and could not possibly have been an issue in the early Church.
All others translate the word as "knowledge" and Clarke's commentary makes clear the type of knowledge referred to.
It resembled the great debate in the early Church over falsely inspired "knowledge" of Gnostics, which did not remotely resemble today's science.
1 Timothy 6:20
Bottom line: your claims that the old King James is the only accurate translation, that all more modern works are "perversions", and that only your interpretations of the Bible are valid -- these claims are not supported by any evidence I've seen.
More to the point of this thread, they have nothing whatever to do with scientific facts and theories relating to Evolution.
Because only the KJB in English is from the correct (Antiochan) line of manuscripts. All other English “bibles” since 1881 come from corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts. In the case of the word “science” only the KJB is correct. Precisely because the HS knew the end-time generations would have an inordinate love for science over God’s word. And the devil knew it, too, because he incites it, and especially since Darwin has gotten heavily invested in English translated committees.
According to Clarke's Commentary, the Greek in 1 Timothy 6:20 is:
This was obviously falsely inspired "knowledge", and that is just what Paul's letter to Timothy says.
So any suggestion that such knowledge could refer to modern scientific methods is simply perverting the original meaning to suit your own purposes.
Here is the explanation quoted in Clarke's:
"In the enumeration of the different kinds of inspiration bestowed on the first preachers of the Gospel, 1 Cor. xii. 8, we find the word of knowledge mentioned; by which is meant that kind of inspiration which gave to the apostles and superior Christian prophets the knowledge of the true meaning of the Jewish Scriptures."This inspiration the false teachers pretending to possess, dignified their misinterpretations of the ancient Scriptures with the name of knowledge, that is, inspired knowledge; for so the word signifies, 1 Cor. xiv. 6.
And as by these interpretations they endeavoured to establish the efficacy of the Levitical atonements, the apostle very properly termed these interpretations oppositions of knowledge, because they were framed to establish doctrines opposite to, and subversive of, the Gospel."To destroy the credit of these teachers, he affirmed that the knowledge from which they proceeded was falsely called inspired knowledge; for they were not inspired with the knowledge of the meaning of the Scriptures, but only pretended to it."
By way of comparison & contrast: a Hebrew word more appropriately translated as "science" appears in Daniel 1:4, and the context makes clear that it means practical, not "inspired", knowledge, indeed, NIV translates that word as "aptitude".
Bottom line: the definition of the Greek word "yeudwnumou" is found in the King James translation itself, in 1 Corinthians 14:6 = knowledge -- in this case knowledge falsely inspired.
So this has nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to do with some manuscripts from Alexandria.
The KJB rendering is correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.