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

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Is This What Is Meant By Biblical Apologetics

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on October 4, 2004 15:36:02 UTC


You are clearly far more learned than I in the interpretation of biblical scripture. I like the idea of commenorative days and the grouping of all eventual species at the time when their first forms arise, thereby allowing the form, as I see it, of scripture to be consistent with the form of evolution as displayed in the fossil record.

However, I would prefer to associate the first commenorative day with the creation of the universe, the big bang, rather than the formation of Earth, as it seems clear that life existed in the universe before it existed on earth.

Support for this claim is that aminos are found is space on dust particles and comets. It seems that space is teeming with elementary forms of life, or at least the ingredients of life. Since the Earth formed from the coalescing of dust, etc., it is likely that the elements of life were present in what became the Earth even before it was formed.

So it is also likely, no matter what your definition of life is, that lifeforms existed on Earth before there was sunlight. So scripture and science can be made consistent, at least in form- what came first, second, etc.

Now there must be a name to the academic pursuit that attempts to make science and scripture consistent. Of all people, I would expect you to know the name of that field of endeavour. Allow me to copy over my public journal from the Physics Forum:

"My approach to the comparative categories of mathematics, science and religion is to neglect all forms that are not extant in all three fields. Otherwise we obtain a virtual infinity to chose from in determining the fundamental nature of the universe and the multiverse. This requirement thereby structures a new academic field of inquiry."

This is my first and only entry. I next intend mention the most elementary forms that are consistent in science and scripture. That math is consistent with science is a given especially for the forms that are also consistent with scripture.

So as you taught me, a basic form from Christianity is the three fold Eternal God, Logos and us; which is consistent with Dark Energy, Dark Matter and physical matter. As we discussed in earlier posts, the characteristics of Dark Energy are consistent with expected characteristics of the Eternal God, and so on. (So characteristics are a kind of form or category)

However, the basic form of God in Chriatianity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost(Spirit). That is a four fold form along with us, and so I lack the identification of the Holy Ghost with anything so far discovered in Astronomy or physics. I presume the Holy Ghost is cosmic or at least astronomical in nature.

I wonder if you have any insight on this issue?
My inclination is to associate the Trinity with aspects of Dark Matter, evidence of a spiritual heirachy as mentioned before, leaving the Eternal God outside of the Trinity.

And what is the name of what I am trying to do?


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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