Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Oh Really

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Scott Abernathy on April 26, 2002 19:05:49 UTC

Hi Richard,

Are you implying what I think you are implying?

You said -
"If we switch Wednesday with Thursday (if I emember correctly), then the day by day story of god's creation agrees exactly with the epoch by epoch history of the world."

So did the people who wrote the bible have an extensive knowledge of erosion rates, varve counts, radioactive isotope decay, unconformities in the rock record, intrusive and extrusive igneous rock formations, plate tectonics, seismology, and volcanism? It has taken modern geology many years of research and data collection to assemble the ago of the earth and its subsequent evolution. Hindsight is 20/20! I think it is a reach to say that biblical scholars knew and understood the geological processes that were affecting the earth through the eras. Is that what you meant? Eras? Epochs are much shorter lengths of time, whereas eras are the larger, all encompassing units of time.

You wrote -
"That history is not based on evolution. It is based on geology and archaelogy, the earth sciences. Evolution is the theory of how more and more complex lifeforms came into existence. That is theory."

Evolution does not just imply biological evolution. Evolution can be used in astronomy for stars (stellar evolution), geology for the progression of fossils, meteorology for the progression of our atmosphere, and so on and so on. Evolution is a word that means change through time, it applies to a wide array of fields.

You wrote -
"But the fact that life started in the oceans and migrated to land is not theory. It is fact and it is fact that appears in the biblical story of creation."

While it is fact that life began in the ocean it is still not understood what zone of the ocean it was. Was it the shallow, coastal regions that would be most conducive to photosynthesis, or was it the in the deep ocean trenches where nutrient rich waters would provide for chemosynthesis. There is still some debate and there is no consensus on the subject to my knowledge.

You wrote -
" So to begin a discussion of evolution we first have to agree that that scientific history of the world agrees with the Jewish creation story."


I would never agree to such nonsense. I am sorry if I sound rude, but I would not ever agree to such a statement without tangible evidence.

Scott


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins