Sola has had a humour bypass, methinks.
@LaserGuy
Science is supposed to be self-correcting, but the theory of evolution is not scientific because it is not falsifiable, or it would have already been proven false.
Darwin himself acknowledged in On the Origin of Species that many major problems exist for his theory in contrast to the alternative belief of his time, created kinds, and devoted four chapters of the book to addressing them. The problem is that while Darwin himself was more honest in disclosing these issues, his adherents since then have simply pushed evolution into academia as the established view, without ever subjecting it to questioning or scrutiny. Nor was the theory of evolution ever scrutinized in light of these difficulties aside from Darwin's original analysis; apart from creationists. Thus the scientific community treated the theory of evolution as a religion that cannot be questioned.
"In the four succeeding chapters, the most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory will be given: namely, first, the difficulties of transitions, or in understanding how a simple being or a simple organ can be changed and perfected into a highly developed being or elaborately constructed organ; secondly, the subject of Instinct, or the mental powers of animals; thirdly, Hybridism, or the infertility of species and the fertility of varieties when intercrossed; and fourthly, the imperfection of the Geological Record."
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=20
In Chapter 6 Darwin acknowledges that life is too complex and exhibits a degree of design and complexity difficult to explain; he gives the example of the eye. Darwin acknowledges on pg. 201 that "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." However, some clearly different types of life do depend on one another; see commensalism and symbiosis.
Chapter 7 addresses the extraordinary degree of instinct in animals, and together with Chapter 6 includes the arguments made by Intelligent Design. This too continues to be an issue for the theory of evolution. How, for example, can evolution explain moths with pictures of spiders on their wings, like the Lygodium Spider Moth? Did the moth gradually evolve one leg of the spider on its wings, then another leg, etc. over millions of years? It makes no sense from an evolutionist perspective. Or what about the Macrocilix Maia Moth, which has a picture of two maggots eating bird poop on its wings? Flower mantises perfectly imitate flowers, e.g. hymenopus coronatus. And what of macropina macrostoma, a fish with a fluid-filled transparent head with 360-degree rotating eyeballs? How do creatures like these gradually evolve over time?
Then there is the matter of instinct. Some creatures can migrate thousands of miles like the Swallowtail Butterfly to set locations (as the Swallowtails do) without ever being taught how or where to go. That degree of innate instinct suggests a level of spirit separate from purely biological processes. For a Creationist, this makes perfect sense, since the Bible says the spirits of animals return back to the Earth, unlike those of humans which ascend (Ecclesiastes 3:21).
Chapter 8 deals with hybridism or infertility when different genera breed. Most types of life cannot interbreed, and even when closely-related types of life interbreed that are from the same created kind, the result is sterility. When lions and tigers interbreed (ligers) the offspring are sterile, as are the offspring of horses and donkeys (mules). This suggests a Creator who keeps life from going outside its intended boundaries; rather than all life evolving from a common ancestor.
Chapter 9 addresses the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. This continues to be a serious problem for the theory of evolution, as acknowledged in Gould and Eldredge's 1972 paper, Punctuated Equilibria, An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. Gould and Eldredge's new model proposed that evolution speeds up rapidly in response to catastrophic events, so that all of the macro-level changes between species conveniently don't show up in the fossil record-which they don't. Since the fossil record consistently just shows microevolution, steady changes within genera; but not between core types of life, Gould and Eldredge proposed that life evolves too rapidly to be seen in the fossil record.
Science is supposed to be self-correcting, but the theory of evolution is not scientific because it is not falsifiable, or it would have already been proven false.
Darwin himself acknowledged in On the Origin of Species that many major problems exist for his theory in contrast to the alternative belief of his time, created kinds, and devoted four chapters of the book to addressing them. The problem is that while Darwin himself was more honest in disclosing these issues, his adherents since then have simply pushed evolution into academia as the established view, without ever subjecting it to questioning or scrutiny. Nor was the theory of evolution ever scrutinized in light of these difficulties aside from Darwin's original analysis; apart from creationists. Thus the scientific community treated the theory of evolution as a religion that cannot be questioned.
"In the four succeeding chapters, the most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory will be given: namely, first, the difficulties of transitions, or in understanding how a simple being or a simple organ can be changed and perfected into a highly developed being or elaborately constructed organ; secondly, the subject of Instinct, or the mental powers of animals; thirdly, Hybridism, or the infertility of species and the fertility of varieties when intercrossed; and fourthly, the imperfection of the Geological Record."
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=20
In Chapter 6 Darwin acknowledges that life is too complex and exhibits a degree of design and complexity difficult to explain; he gives the example of the eye. Darwin acknowledges on pg. 201 that "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." However, some clearly different types of life do depend on one another; see commensalism and symbiosis.
Chapter 7 addresses the extraordinary degree of instinct in animals, and together with Chapter 6 includes the arguments made by Intelligent Design. This too continues to be an issue for the theory of evolution. How, for example, can evolution explain moths with pictures of spiders on their wings, like the Lygodium Spider Moth? Did the moth gradually evolve one leg of the spider on its wings, then another leg, etc. over millions of years? It makes no sense from an evolutionist perspective. Or what about the Macrocilix Maia Moth, which has a picture of two maggots eating bird poop on its wings? Flower mantises perfectly imitate flowers, e.g. hymenopus coronatus. And what of macropina macrostoma, a fish with a fluid-filled transparent head with 360-degree rotating eyeballs? How do creatures like these gradually evolve over time?
Then there is the matter of instinct. Some creatures can migrate thousands of miles like the Swallowtail Butterfly to set locations (as the Swallowtails do) without ever being taught how or where to go. That degree of innate instinct suggests a level of spirit separate from purely biological processes. For a Creationist, this makes perfect sense, since the Bible says the spirits of animals return back to the Earth, unlike those of humans which ascend (Ecclesiastes 3:21).
Chapter 8 deals with hybridism or infertility when different genera breed. Most types of life cannot interbreed, and even when closely-related types of life interbreed that are from the same created kind, the result is sterility. When lions and tigers interbreed (ligers) the offspring are sterile, as are the offspring of horses and donkeys (mules). This suggests a Creator who keeps life from going outside its intended boundaries; rather than all life evolving from a common ancestor.
Chapter 9 addresses the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. This continues to be a serious problem for the theory of evolution, as acknowledged in Gould and Eldredge's 1972 paper, Punctuated Equilibria, An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. Gould and Eldredge's new model proposed that evolution speeds up rapidly in response to catastrophic events, so that all of the macro-level changes between species conveniently don't show up in the fossil record-which they don't. Since the fossil record consistently just shows microevolution, steady changes within genera; but not between core types of life, Gould and Eldredge proposed that life evolves too rapidly to be seen in the fossil record.
@LaserGuy
"What we don't do is throw up our hands and say 'These problems are insurmountable, the only thing to do is turn to ancient mythology'. If scientists in the past had done that, we would not today have electricity or vaccines or antibiotics or cell phones or satellites or basically any other modern convenience."
The Bible-believing Creationist founders of science such as Isaac Newton did not do that though either. Vaccines were invented by Louis Pasteur who disagreed with Darwin at the time. The study of ocean currents was originated by Matthew Maury on the basis of Psalms 8:8.
Creationists believe that the Bible is true and God created core types of life which then adapted, microevolved, into the varieties we see today. This is a paradigm, a belief, a worldview, in the same way that the theory of evolution holds that all life naturalistically originated from a common ancestor through purely physical processes. The theory of evolution requires the assumption that God has not intervened in the universe, and therefore all nature should be explainable through purely natural processes.
In contrast, a Creationist expects to see that which cannot be explained through purely natural processes; life that exists within the core kinds of Genesis 1. A Creationist expects to see evidence of a Flood and drastic destruction of life throughout the fossil record per Catastrophism, which was the opposing model to Lyellian Uniformitarianism, but was abandoned in favor of Darwinian Evolution. A Creationist anticipates extraordinary levels of design, instinct, and complexity in nature that are unexplainable through purely physiological means.
While evidence can be viewed through these paradigms (and is), an honest researcher will subject their own beliefs to scrutiny and weigh the evidence in light of their beliefs (as Darwin arguably did, by openly acknowledging weaknesses to his theory and ways in which it could be disproved).
Just because someone is a Creationist, in other words, does not mean they just consistently say "God did it and I'm not going to look into it." If anything, they care deeply about honestly evaluating evidence as the Bible repeatedly tells us to (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). If one has faith (trust that their beliefs are right), they do not mind subjecting those beliefs to scrutiny or seeing where the evidence leads; for they are confident it will justify what they believe. It is only those who are insecure in their beliefs, i.e. lack faith, that refuse to subject their beliefs to scrutiny or objectively analyze evidence. In other words, a Creationist who was afraid to follow the evidence where it leads and consider all of the facts would lack faith and trust in God, and arguably would not even be a Creationist.
"What we don't do is throw up our hands and say 'These problems are insurmountable, the only thing to do is turn to ancient mythology'. If scientists in the past had done that, we would not today have electricity or vaccines or antibiotics or cell phones or satellites or basically any other modern convenience."
The Bible-believing Creationist founders of science such as Isaac Newton did not do that though either. Vaccines were invented by Louis Pasteur who disagreed with Darwin at the time. The study of ocean currents was originated by Matthew Maury on the basis of Psalms 8:8.
Creationists believe that the Bible is true and God created core types of life which then adapted, microevolved, into the varieties we see today. This is a paradigm, a belief, a worldview, in the same way that the theory of evolution holds that all life naturalistically originated from a common ancestor through purely physical processes. The theory of evolution requires the assumption that God has not intervened in the universe, and therefore all nature should be explainable through purely natural processes.
In contrast, a Creationist expects to see that which cannot be explained through purely natural processes; life that exists within the core kinds of Genesis 1. A Creationist expects to see evidence of a Flood and drastic destruction of life throughout the fossil record per Catastrophism, which was the opposing model to Lyellian Uniformitarianism, but was abandoned in favor of Darwinian Evolution. A Creationist anticipates extraordinary levels of design, instinct, and complexity in nature that are unexplainable through purely physiological means.
While evidence can be viewed through these paradigms (and is), an honest researcher will subject their own beliefs to scrutiny and weigh the evidence in light of their beliefs (as Darwin arguably did, by openly acknowledging weaknesses to his theory and ways in which it could be disproved).
Just because someone is a Creationist, in other words, does not mean they just consistently say "God did it and I'm not going to look into it." If anything, they care deeply about honestly evaluating evidence as the Bible repeatedly tells us to (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). If one has faith (trust that their beliefs are right), they do not mind subjecting those beliefs to scrutiny or seeing where the evidence leads; for they are confident it will justify what they believe. It is only those who are insecure in their beliefs, i.e. lack faith, that refuse to subject their beliefs to scrutiny or objectively analyze evidence. In other words, a Creationist who was afraid to follow the evidence where it leads and consider all of the facts would lack faith and trust in God, and arguably would not even be a Creationist.
@Jzyehoshua
"The Bible-believing Creationist founders of science such as Isaac Newton did not do that though either. Vaccines were invented by Louis Pasteur who disagreed with Darwin at the time. The study of ocean currents was originated by Matthew Maury on the basis of Psalms 8:8."
In the case of Newton, it was only his studies in the physical sciences that actually proved fruitful. The years he spent on numerology trying to divine the date of the return of Jesus are long forgotten. Regardless, being a Creationist, or Christian (or a Muslim, Jew, Sikh, scientologist) does not preclude you from making scientific discoveries but any stretch of the imagination. But when you have the expectation that there is a set of phenomena that are intrinsically unsolvable, then it closes your thought process to creative solutions. From the vantage point of history, it's also a mindset that is consistently wrong. Disease is not caused by demon possession. Lightning is not caused by Zeus. The stars were not hung in the firmament that surrounded the earth. Man was not created from dust. Earthquakes are not caused by divine wrath. These and many others were all phenomena that once had religious explanations. Now they do not.
"If one has faith (trust that their beliefs are right), they do not mind subjecting those beliefs to scrutiny or seeing where the evidence leads; for they are confident it will justify what they believe."
Yes. This is the heart of the problem. People of faith think they have already arrived at the answers before any evidence is even presented. The critical question is this: "Can you imagine any piece of evidence, no matter how outlandish, that would make you stop believing what you believe?" If the answer to that question is "No", there is nothing more to discuss and we are both wasting our time.
"The Bible-believing Creationist founders of science such as Isaac Newton did not do that though either. Vaccines were invented by Louis Pasteur who disagreed with Darwin at the time. The study of ocean currents was originated by Matthew Maury on the basis of Psalms 8:8."
In the case of Newton, it was only his studies in the physical sciences that actually proved fruitful. The years he spent on numerology trying to divine the date of the return of Jesus are long forgotten. Regardless, being a Creationist, or Christian (or a Muslim, Jew, Sikh, scientologist) does not preclude you from making scientific discoveries but any stretch of the imagination. But when you have the expectation that there is a set of phenomena that are intrinsically unsolvable, then it closes your thought process to creative solutions. From the vantage point of history, it's also a mindset that is consistently wrong. Disease is not caused by demon possession. Lightning is not caused by Zeus. The stars were not hung in the firmament that surrounded the earth. Man was not created from dust. Earthquakes are not caused by divine wrath. These and many others were all phenomena that once had religious explanations. Now they do not.
"If one has faith (trust that their beliefs are right), they do not mind subjecting those beliefs to scrutiny or seeing where the evidence leads; for they are confident it will justify what they believe."
Yes. This is the heart of the problem. People of faith think they have already arrived at the answers before any evidence is even presented. The critical question is this: "Can you imagine any piece of evidence, no matter how outlandish, that would make you stop believing what you believe?" If the answer to that question is "No", there is nothing more to discuss and we are both wasting our time.
hmmm...well just from an accepted standard in most universities and seminaries when one speaks of Atheism, one means one speaks of a belief system that rejects any system of beliefs containing a "God." Agnostic merely means that we cannot know or perhaps even believe one way or the other on the God issue because supporting justification for such a claim either affirming or negating the claim of God's existence simply does not exist.
Personally, I am a Roman Catholic, but there are numerous things in the Catholic Church theologically speaking that I disagree with both in terms of logical imperatives and scientific evidence. God, however, is something beyond logic and beyond experiential knowledge. Far too often I've seen students in Philosophy 101 classes after a few months become quite emboldened in anti-Christian and also atheistic thought. The most common case of emboldening atheist propaganda is to refute an entirely tiresome and irrelevant piece of "junk-theology" that claims that the Earth and humanity was created 6,000 years ago. The problem with joining theism and this kind of bizarre contortion of 'creationism' is that the line of reason commits a most dangerous logical flaw of hinging one's belief in God on something that has NOTHING to do with God at all, - that being that the world was created 6,000 years ago. So....basically to answer the root of the question between Creationism or non-Creationism, the answer I as well as other Christians ought to come to is that of course sometime in the distant past, God created everything!
Personally, I am a Roman Catholic, but there are numerous things in the Catholic Church theologically speaking that I disagree with both in terms of logical imperatives and scientific evidence. God, however, is something beyond logic and beyond experiential knowledge. Far too often I've seen students in Philosophy 101 classes after a few months become quite emboldened in anti-Christian and also atheistic thought. The most common case of emboldening atheist propaganda is to refute an entirely tiresome and irrelevant piece of "junk-theology" that claims that the Earth and humanity was created 6,000 years ago. The problem with joining theism and this kind of bizarre contortion of 'creationism' is that the line of reason commits a most dangerous logical flaw of hinging one's belief in God on something that has NOTHING to do with God at all, - that being that the world was created 6,000 years ago. So....basically to answer the root of the question between Creationism or non-Creationism, the answer I as well as other Christians ought to come to is that of course sometime in the distant past, God created everything!
@Jzyehoshua
"Darwin himself acknowledged in On the Origin of Species that many major problems exist for his theory in contrast to the alternative belief of his time, created kinds, and devoted four chapters of the book to addressing them. The problem is that while Darwin himself was more honest in disclosing these issues, his adherents since then have simply pushed evolution into academia as the established view, without ever subjecting it to questioning or scrutiny. Nor was the theory of evolution ever scrutinized in light of these difficulties aside from Darwin's original analysis; apart from creationists. Thus the scientific community treated the theory of evolution as a religion that cannot be questioned. "
As I said... Darwin's beliefs about evolution literally do not matter as far as the modern theory is concerned. Darwin is not canon. It is not necessary that he be right about everything, or even most things, and, indeed, there were many things that he was wrong about. That's fine. We do not have a perfect understanding of the sequence of events that led exactly to this moment in evolutionary history, and likely never will. The theory provides a framework understanding the emergence of new phenomena in systems, and it works even if the details of the system are presently beyond our ability to work out. Although some of the problems that Darwin mentions, like the eye, have indeed been the subject of intensive research and we have a pretty good idea of how such a system can evolve. In just about every example of "irreducible complexity" that is presented, somebody manages to find a way to reduce it. Things like mimickry (the insects you talk about from Chapter 7) are also well-understood.
"Darwin himself acknowledged in On the Origin of Species that many major problems exist for his theory in contrast to the alternative belief of his time, created kinds, and devoted four chapters of the book to addressing them. The problem is that while Darwin himself was more honest in disclosing these issues, his adherents since then have simply pushed evolution into academia as the established view, without ever subjecting it to questioning or scrutiny. Nor was the theory of evolution ever scrutinized in light of these difficulties aside from Darwin's original analysis; apart from creationists. Thus the scientific community treated the theory of evolution as a religion that cannot be questioned. "
As I said... Darwin's beliefs about evolution literally do not matter as far as the modern theory is concerned. Darwin is not canon. It is not necessary that he be right about everything, or even most things, and, indeed, there were many things that he was wrong about. That's fine. We do not have a perfect understanding of the sequence of events that led exactly to this moment in evolutionary history, and likely never will. The theory provides a framework understanding the emergence of new phenomena in systems, and it works even if the details of the system are presently beyond our ability to work out. Although some of the problems that Darwin mentions, like the eye, have indeed been the subject of intensive research and we have a pretty good idea of how such a system can evolve. In just about every example of "irreducible complexity" that is presented, somebody manages to find a way to reduce it. Things like mimickry (the insects you talk about from Chapter 7) are also well-understood.
@LaserGuy @BeliefOnTheLordJesus @BlackBishop9319 @Jzyehoshua
I wouldn't put too much faith in Darwin in terms of him being the end to all wisdom! Let's keep in mind that he lived in the19th century!! His theory of evolution is certainly interesting and moved us forward in terms of our academic understanding but he was certainly not the first or the last to contribute to the idea that things change over time nor does modern Anthropology take his 19th century accounts of evolution as "perfect." Martin Luther, for example, put forth great and inspiring ideas that shaped our modern Christianity for the better but let's not forget that this same man wrote a book entitled, "On the Jews and their Lies!" Let's not forget Henry Ford who invented the assembly line and whose factory "La Rouge" was really an instrumental feature of American industrialism not to mentioned the high wages that he paid his employees.....of course that same great man was also cursed by the culture of late19th early 20th century politics and wrote a book called, "The International Jew!" Let's not forget other great men like Andrew Jackson who dismantled the Central Bank and defended New Orleans, but who also is know for the Jacksonian Ideal coined by his latter compatriot US Grant who coined the phrase, "The only good Indian is a DEAD Indian!" Not to mentioned the other most notable anti-semites and racists through history not even to mention that most of Albert Einstein's theories have now been proven false!!
So....great men are most often times imperfect culminations of their surroundings! Heidegger may be the most perfect of all philosophers by understanding the true condemnation of 'Dasein' to 'the they!!!'
I wouldn't put too much faith in Darwin in terms of him being the end to all wisdom! Let's keep in mind that he lived in the19th century!! His theory of evolution is certainly interesting and moved us forward in terms of our academic understanding but he was certainly not the first or the last to contribute to the idea that things change over time nor does modern Anthropology take his 19th century accounts of evolution as "perfect." Martin Luther, for example, put forth great and inspiring ideas that shaped our modern Christianity for the better but let's not forget that this same man wrote a book entitled, "On the Jews and their Lies!" Let's not forget Henry Ford who invented the assembly line and whose factory "La Rouge" was really an instrumental feature of American industrialism not to mentioned the high wages that he paid his employees.....of course that same great man was also cursed by the culture of late19th early 20th century politics and wrote a book called, "The International Jew!" Let's not forget other great men like Andrew Jackson who dismantled the Central Bank and defended New Orleans, but who also is know for the Jacksonian Ideal coined by his latter compatriot US Grant who coined the phrase, "The only good Indian is a DEAD Indian!" Not to mentioned the other most notable anti-semites and racists through history not even to mention that most of Albert Einstein's theories have now been proven false!!
So....great men are most often times imperfect culminations of their surroundings! Heidegger may be the most perfect of all philosophers by understanding the true condemnation of 'Dasein' to 'the they!!!'
@LaserGuy
Actually many of those Old Testament laws provided advanced knowledge of medicine to prevent infection over 3,000 years before modern medicine. Such laws contained advanced knowledge of disease transmission to prevent direct contact, droplet spread, and indirect contact. The laws provided an extensive medical approach to avoiding disease transmission through sexual contact, bloodborne transmission, fecal-oral transmission, and waterborne transmission.
* Touching infected diseased materials or persons was prohibited to prevent the spread of disease. (Lev. 5:2-3) As a general rule, touching anything diseased required washing and quarantine afterwards. (Lev. 20:5-6)
* Eating animals more likely to carry diseases was prohibited. (Lev. 11) Touching the dead carcasses was prohibited (vv. 24-25). Anything that touched them was to be considered unclean and avoided, including food and water (vv. 32-35). Those who touched diseased animals were to be considered unclean until the evening (v. 39). Washing and quarantine was commanded for those that ate them. (vv. 39-40)
* Post-partum disease transmission was prevented by quarantine for women after birth. (Lev. 12)
* Specific treatments for different diseases were prescribed, along with quarantine methods to prevent diseases from spreading. (Lev. 13)
* Quarantining houses to stop mold was practiced. (Lev. 14:37-46) Washing clothes of those who entered the houses was prescribed. (Lev. 14:47)
* It was recognized that the discharges from diseased sores spread infections. Everything they touched was to be considered unclean, and they were to wash with "running water" (v. 13) and be quarantined afterwards. (Lev. 1-13) It was also recognized that saliva from spit would spread the disease. (v. 8)
* STD transmission was prevented by restrictions on sexual contact with the infected as well as washing and quarantining of the diseased. The increased likelihood of disease transmission due to menstrual blood was also acknowledged. (Lev. 15:16-33; 20:18) Lifestyles that increase STDs and birth defects such as incest, homosexuality, and bestiality were also prohibited. (Lev. 20)
* Transmission of blood-borne pathogens was prevented by a prohibition on eating food with the blood. Those who violated the commandment had to undergo washing and quarantine. (Lev. 17:10-16)
* Disposal of human waste by burying it away from campsites (catholes) to prevent disease spread was practiced. (Deuteronomy 23:12-13)
Furthermore, the Bible contains advanced knowledge of science, contrary to your characterization of it:
* Ocean currents and the water cycle are described in Psalms 8:8 and Ecclesiastes 1:7, resulting in Matthew Maury's discovery of ocean currents upon which modern hydrology is founded. Modern science only caught up to the Bible because of what was written nearly 3,000 years earlier.
* Fountains of the great deep, huge underwater reservoirs, are now known to exist, per Genesis 7:11; which says they were a major source of water for the Flood. Even aside from fossil aquifers such as the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System, Ogallala Aquifer, and Kalahari Desert Aquifers, it is now recognized that there is a massive underground ocean that could serve as the source for the Earth's seas. Again, modern science is just now realizing that the Bible is right on details given over 3,500 years ago.
http://time.com/2868283/subterranean-ocean-reservoir-core-ringwoodite/
* There are four jet streams, consistent with Revelation 7:1. The cycles of wind currents are accurately described in Ecclesiastes 1:6. Clouds are accurately described in Job 26:8.
* There are four hemispheres of the Earth, consistent with Revelation 20:8.
* The human lifespan was accurately described thousands of years earlier as having a 70 to 80 year average (Psalms 90:10) and a 120-year maximum. (Genesis 6:3) After 3,000 years, this still remains an accurate description of the human lifespan.
* Expansion of the universe is described in Job 9:8; Psalms 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; etc. The Hubble Telescope didn't discover the accelerating expansion of the universe until 1998, and now modern science is trying to explain something the Bible did over 3,000 years ago during the times of Job and King David.
* A lack of gravity in space, with Earth hanging on nothing, is described in Job 26:7.
* The Earth is described as spherical in Isaiah 40:22 using the Hebrew word 'chuwg.'
www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/chuwg-2.html
* Microevolution from core created kinds was commanded to all life in Genesis 1:11-12,21,24-25.
* That humans were created in present form from molecules, not monkeys (KJV 'dust,' Genesis 2:7 from the Heb. 'aphar) and never looked anything like modern apes, consistent with Genesis 2, has been evident since 2009 with the discovery of ardipithecus ramidus. The discoveries of sahelanthropus tchadensis and orrorin tugenensis likewise show that early humans were in an advanced stage of evolution similar to modern man, and has led to the acknowledgements that australopithecus afarensis (aka Lucy) and homo erectus walked upright. The book of Genesis was right about this over 3,500 years before modern science finally got it right.
www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2009/10/oldest-skeleton-human-ancestor-found-ardipithecus/
biblestrength.com/Creationism#Early_Bipedal_Humans
www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/aphar-2.html
Actually many of those Old Testament laws provided advanced knowledge of medicine to prevent infection over 3,000 years before modern medicine. Such laws contained advanced knowledge of disease transmission to prevent direct contact, droplet spread, and indirect contact. The laws provided an extensive medical approach to avoiding disease transmission through sexual contact, bloodborne transmission, fecal-oral transmission, and waterborne transmission.
* Touching infected diseased materials or persons was prohibited to prevent the spread of disease. (Lev. 5:2-3) As a general rule, touching anything diseased required washing and quarantine afterwards. (Lev. 20:5-6)
* Eating animals more likely to carry diseases was prohibited. (Lev. 11) Touching the dead carcasses was prohibited (vv. 24-25). Anything that touched them was to be considered unclean and avoided, including food and water (vv. 32-35). Those who touched diseased animals were to be considered unclean until the evening (v. 39). Washing and quarantine was commanded for those that ate them. (vv. 39-40)
* Post-partum disease transmission was prevented by quarantine for women after birth. (Lev. 12)
* Specific treatments for different diseases were prescribed, along with quarantine methods to prevent diseases from spreading. (Lev. 13)
* Quarantining houses to stop mold was practiced. (Lev. 14:37-46) Washing clothes of those who entered the houses was prescribed. (Lev. 14:47)
* It was recognized that the discharges from diseased sores spread infections. Everything they touched was to be considered unclean, and they were to wash with "running water" (v. 13) and be quarantined afterwards. (Lev. 1-13) It was also recognized that saliva from spit would spread the disease. (v. 8)
* STD transmission was prevented by restrictions on sexual contact with the infected as well as washing and quarantining of the diseased. The increased likelihood of disease transmission due to menstrual blood was also acknowledged. (Lev. 15:16-33; 20:18) Lifestyles that increase STDs and birth defects such as incest, homosexuality, and bestiality were also prohibited. (Lev. 20)
* Transmission of blood-borne pathogens was prevented by a prohibition on eating food with the blood. Those who violated the commandment had to undergo washing and quarantine. (Lev. 17:10-16)
* Disposal of human waste by burying it away from campsites (catholes) to prevent disease spread was practiced. (Deuteronomy 23:12-13)
Furthermore, the Bible contains advanced knowledge of science, contrary to your characterization of it:
* Ocean currents and the water cycle are described in Psalms 8:8 and Ecclesiastes 1:7, resulting in Matthew Maury's discovery of ocean currents upon which modern hydrology is founded. Modern science only caught up to the Bible because of what was written nearly 3,000 years earlier.
* Fountains of the great deep, huge underwater reservoirs, are now known to exist, per Genesis 7:11; which says they were a major source of water for the Flood. Even aside from fossil aquifers such as the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System, Ogallala Aquifer, and Kalahari Desert Aquifers, it is now recognized that there is a massive underground ocean that could serve as the source for the Earth's seas. Again, modern science is just now realizing that the Bible is right on details given over 3,500 years ago.
http://time.com/2868283/subterranean-ocean-reservoir-core-ringwoodite/
* There are four jet streams, consistent with Revelation 7:1. The cycles of wind currents are accurately described in Ecclesiastes 1:6. Clouds are accurately described in Job 26:8.
* There are four hemispheres of the Earth, consistent with Revelation 20:8.
* The human lifespan was accurately described thousands of years earlier as having a 70 to 80 year average (Psalms 90:10) and a 120-year maximum. (Genesis 6:3) After 3,000 years, this still remains an accurate description of the human lifespan.
* Expansion of the universe is described in Job 9:8; Psalms 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; etc. The Hubble Telescope didn't discover the accelerating expansion of the universe until 1998, and now modern science is trying to explain something the Bible did over 3,000 years ago during the times of Job and King David.
* A lack of gravity in space, with Earth hanging on nothing, is described in Job 26:7.
* The Earth is described as spherical in Isaiah 40:22 using the Hebrew word 'chuwg.'
www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/chuwg-2.html
* Microevolution from core created kinds was commanded to all life in Genesis 1:11-12,21,24-25.
* That humans were created in present form from molecules, not monkeys (KJV 'dust,' Genesis 2:7 from the Heb. 'aphar) and never looked anything like modern apes, consistent with Genesis 2, has been evident since 2009 with the discovery of ardipithecus ramidus. The discoveries of sahelanthropus tchadensis and orrorin tugenensis likewise show that early humans were in an advanced stage of evolution similar to modern man, and has led to the acknowledgements that australopithecus afarensis (aka Lucy) and homo erectus walked upright. The book of Genesis was right about this over 3,500 years before modern science finally got it right.
www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2009/10/oldest-skeleton-human-ancestor-found-ardipithecus/
biblestrength.com/Creationism#Early_Bipedal_Humans
www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/aphar-2.html
When level of insanity is not high enough in a thread like this, then one can bring in the 𝐕𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐂𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐥𝐞 ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Circle ) and 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦.
In particular the 𝐕𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐂𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨 ( http://murzim.net/VC/VC03.html ) says this on meaning:
And then let's see what Stanford Encyclopedia of Philisophy has to say about operationalism ( plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/ ):
"𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞, 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝."
Then in light of these definitions one can argue, that the word "God" and statements about "God" have no meaning.
In particular the 𝐕𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐂𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨 ( http://murzim.net/VC/VC03.html ) says this on meaning:
And then let's see what Stanford Encyclopedia of Philisophy has to say about operationalism ( plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/ ):
"𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞, 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝."
Then in light of these definitions one can argue, that the word "God" and statements about "God" have no meaning.
It's probably best to refrain from quotes from wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a valid source of information. That's not to say that many things on wikipedia are not valid and true....it's just not a reliable source of information.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.