Posted by Gary on March 18, 1999 at 06:39:58 {MW9hQZt3yw8IU}:
In Reply to: Bible versus Science posted by AF on March 17, 1999 at 13:54:58:
Hi AF,
Thanks for your note. Only adding my two cents.
1. First I'd like to point out my standard criticism of science's limited ability to perceive the whole picture. That is, simply, science cannot perceive ART, but we can. We have a sense of "art". Thus in your example of how the Bible says the "sun sets" when science says that the Sun isn't the entity that moves, but the Earth. If I asked you what time is "sunset" for April 30, 511BCE, you'd look it up and tell me.
Why?
Because in our common LANGUAGE, which is an artistic form, we refer to the sun setting. Yet we understand at the same time, that the Earth moves. Why you can't figure out BEFORE you apply a scientific value to "sunset" that its "human", common, subjective and metaphorical is what amazes me. It's as if a scientist is required to lower his I.Q. of common sense in order to make an argument.
To me, this is beneath you? It's just RHETORIC. You know, if you're so smart, why couldn't you have figured out before what is a "literary" statement before applying your scientific rules to it?
So criticism #1 is scientists often MISINTERPRET the Bible right along with many others.
CRITICISM
#2:
Another criticism I have of "science" along these same lines, is their total lack of imagination or acceptance of the critical scientific viewpoints of some fundamentalists who have worked out solutions to some of the scientific
objections to what the Bible says or to what some of the fundamentalists consider to be LITERAL.
For instance the flood. Now I think it is incredible that if the flood happened and the waters went over the highest mountains, that that
water could not have simply "subsided". It's too much water. But the Bible seems to indicate that the water existed in a "canopy" before that, so we know where the excessive water came from. But in addition, the dissipation of the water
which took a year involved "wind" according to the Bible.
Wind can come in many forms, including waterspouts.
So I propose that likely the majority of this water was water-spouted back into the ionosphere and funneled into outer space. So that it basically was sent back to where it came from, only it didn't form the canopy again. And AGAIN, the Bible does say that winds were used to dissipate this water.
Now SCIENTIFICALLY, this works, right? You wanna know where most of the water went? It went back into space where it came from. Thus the Bible is true and scientifically correct. But do scientists want to accept that FUNDMANETALIST EXPLANATION which is perfectly scientific?
No. They want to argue there is no flood because "where would all the water go?"
Which is really point #3 and that is, that scientists want to be prophets in interpreting the Bible in their own way to find fault, even where there is none. Such as not understanding the difference between a metaphorical concept such as "sunset" and a direct scientific statement.
YOUR EXAMPLE:
Now here is an example of why I ignore scientists as a whole. You claim that the footprints in the
lava is proven to be 3 million years old. And it seems pretty logical by where the footprints were that you have a clear case of ancient dating based upon radiocarbon science.
But this doesn't prove the Bible untrue? Why?
Because
the Earth itself is not stated to have been any particular age. So the Earth itself could have been 3 million years old just like the radiocarbon dating says.
So what about the footprints?
First of all, we know that people don't usually walk through lava, right? But angel's can.
SOOOOOOO.... seems to me, that sometimes angels in the ancient past, when there were lava flows, were passing by, and decided to materialize and make footprints in the lava much like some of us like making footprints in the sand at the beach.
So there you have it. We have proof that angels are at least 3 million years old and that they visited the earth way back then. And...that they are the ones who invented NIKIs
since the footprints were size 8, Niki airtops.... .ummmm....did you mention that? Oh,...
Forget about the Niki comment....
Just a bit of humor.
But the thing is, the Bible does say there are angels. It does confirm they materialize. So who is to say some playful angels didn't make those footprints. AND, isn't it much more logical that angels would choose to make footprints through lava than men? who would just get burned?
So you see, one critical problem with science is that they are not thorough enough. They don't have enough imagination in the first place,then they don't check the Bible for detail, and they always factor in thier own incredible STUPIDITY to make sure they remain in the dark ages as far as growing to any true truth, and they call this process "science."
So, thanks, AF, for your cheap shot about the "sunset" and also thanks for the information about the footprints. It seems angels like leaving their footprints around just like us humans.
In the meantime, it remains clear that the biggest
drawback of science....are the scientists...whose lack of imagination is only exceeded by their profound inaptitude to "connect the
dots"!
Cheeeeeeeeeers,
Gary