The Bible's Scientific Credibility

[Captain Seafort]

Compare a Chiwoawoa (The tiny ratlike dog, if you cant understand my attrotious spelling) and a Saint Bernard.
Their skeletons are hugely different and they are the same species

They are, however, different breeds within the subspecies.

the Sai Whale (might be Sei) and Blue whale have nearly identical skeletons (other than size) and are different species.

Of course they do - they're related and have evolved in the same environment.

[stitch626]

Yeah, that was the post, but it said something different.

Oh well.

[Sionnach Glic]

In any case, your points have been refuted. Care to respond?

[stitch626]

Not at the moment, currently doing some reading (relevant to the discussion).

[Mikey]

Hate to say it, Stitch, but here's two words:

convergent evolution.

Manatees and whales evolved similar structures, because of similar environmental pressures. Genetically, however, manatees are far more closely related to elephants than to whales.

My take on the "too complex to be chance evolution" idea: I believe in G-d and more specifically, in G-d as creator. I do NOT believe that this precludes natural selection or evolution. It is as easy for me to believe that G-d created the root of life while allowing for the process of evolution - easier, in fact - as it is to believe that G-d simply planted everyhting down exactly as we see it now.

[Tsukiyumi]

...It is as easy for me to believe that G-d created the root of life while allowing for the process of evolution - easier, in fact - as it is to believe that G-d simply planted everyhting down exactly as we see it now.

Same here.

[Angharrad]

Gerald Schroeder, a former professor of nuclear physics, writes: "The Bible relates in thirty-one verses, in a few hundred words, events spanning sixteen billion years. These are events about which scientists have written literally millions of words. The entire development of animal life is summarized in eight biblical sentences. Considering the brevity of the biblical narrative, the match between the statements and timing in Genesis 1 and the discoveries of modern science is phenomenal, especially when we realize that all biblical interpretation used here was recorded centuries, even millennia, in the past and so was not in any way influenced by the discoveries of modern science. It is modern science that has come to match the biblical account of our genesis."-THE SCIENCE OF GOD-THE CONVERGENCE OF SCIENTIFIC AND BIBLICAL WISDOM.

[Graham Kennedy]

In fact, I look at the marvelous complexity of the universe and the infinitesimal odds that would be in place if things were to come about as they are strictly on chance, and I take it as an affirmation of my belief in G-d. You know me well enough by now to know that I'd never ask you to do so.

And I regard that as a puddle looking around at the pothole it is in and marvelling at how the pothole fits it so well. Surely proof of a supernatural designer.

[Mikey]

I said expicitly that I never expected or wanted to proselytize; I wonder why you seem to want to do so to me.

[Sionnach Glic]

Gerald Schroeder, a former professor of nuclear physics, writes: "The Bible relates in thirty-one verses, in a few hundred words, events spanning sixteen billion years. These are events about which scientists have written literally millions of words. The entire development of animal life is summarized in eight biblical sentences. Considering the brevity of the biblical narrative, the match between the statements and timing in Genesis 1 and the discoveries of modern science is phenomenal, especially when we realize that all biblical interpretation used here was recorded centuries, even millennia, in the past and so was not in any way influenced by the discoveries of modern science. It is modern science that has come to match the biblical account of our genesis."-THE SCIENCE OF GOD-THE CONVERGENCE OF SCIENTIFIC AND BIBLICAL WISDOM.

Okay. Care to explain how?

[Mikey]

Let me amend my respons to GK's puddle analogy. First, it's flawed as my point referenced absolute workings of nature rather than merely nature's relationship to humanity; and in any event, I never said anything about proof or the need to convince anyone. Frankly I don't care if anyone believes as I do. Secondly, why not? As the short story "None Before Me" (I think it was that one) posited, isn't a dog a god to a flea? It provides shelter and sustenance, yet may visit wrath and destruction. So what? It doesn't affect my decision to believe at all.

[Graham Kennedy]

I said expicitly that I never expected or wanted to proselytize; I wonder why you seem to want to do so to me.

I'm not "proselytizing". I'm stating my opinion of your opinion, because that's what this forum is for.

[Graham Kennedy]

Let me amend my respons to GK's puddle analogy. First, it's flawed as my point referenced absolute workings of nature rather than merely nature's relationship to humanity;

No real difference. We look at the universe and say wow, how amazing it is that it is just so. My point is that we would say that WHATEVER the universe was like. No matter what the laws of physics were, they would result in a balance of some sort eventually - they HAVE to, because a system out of balance changes until it IS in balance. If life evolves under that system, no matter what the laws are, it will marvel at their amazing balance. It's really not something that needs explaining.

and in any event, I never said anything about proof or the need to convince anyone. Frankly I don't care if anyone believes as I do.

Forums are intended for discussion. I'm afraid the approach of "here is my opinion and I don't want comment on it" won't wash. If you don't want people commenting on your opinions, don't post them. So long as you do, I and others are perfectly free to respond to them.

[Mikey]

Of course you are; it's pretty obvious that what I said bore no resemblance to "I don't want to hear other opinions." What I wrote, to explain it in other words, was that nobody's opinion has an effect on what I choose to believe; nor would I expect you to sway from the dogma of across-the-board empiricism merely because I believe differently. All this boils down to the fact that I've been stating my belief, and some small examples of my reasoning; there seems to be a pervasive idea among atheists, however, of telling me why I'm wrong. As to the puddle analogy being flawed... it just is. That's not to do with belief - it just referenced a paradigm fundamentally different than that it supposedly described. As to "debunking" the native sense of wonder at the complexity of the universe... that's tangential. I understand the mechanism of lightning, but it doesn't diminish my impression of a beautiful thunderstorm.

[Graham Kennedy]

Of course you are; it's pretty obvious that what I said bore no resemblance to "I don't want to hear other opinions." What I wrote, to explain it in other words, was that nobody's opinion has an effect on what I choose to believe

Well you certainly came across that way, but if I misread it then I'm sorry for that.

; nor would I expect you to sway from the dogma of across-the-board empiricism merely because I believe differently. All this boils down to the fact that I've been stating my belief, and some small examples of my reasoning; there seems to be a pervasive idea among atheists, however, of telling me why I'm wrong.

It's not just a matter of one person changing their opinion because another expresses a different opinion, though. Not all opinions are of equal value, and for me the idea of discussion is to compare and explore why people believe as they do. My aim is to subject my views to critical analysis so that flaws in my reasoning, if any, can be exposed.

As to the puddle analogy being flawed... it just is. That's not to do with belief - it just referenced a paradigm fundamentally different than that it supposedly described.

It may not be a perfect analogy, but it's certainly applicable in the way I described.