Science and the Bible

[Dillon Hunt]

God, while pointing out how all-powerful he was, asked Job if he (Job) was able to "loose the bands of Orion" (Job 38.31).

"Canst thou . . . loose the bands of Orion?"

Garrett P. Serviss, the noted astronomer, wrote about the bands of Orion in his book CURIOSITIES OF THE SKY.

At the present time this band consists of an almost perfect straight line. In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam, will approach each other and form a naked-eye double; but the third, Alnitak, will drift away eastward so that the band will no longer exist.
Thus, these stars that we see forming one of the bands of Orion are like three ships out on the high seas that happen to be in line at the present moment, but in the future will be separated by thousands of miles of space. In fact, all these stars that at the present time constitute the constellation of Orion are bound for different ports, and all are journeying to different corners of the universe, so that the bands are being dissolved.

Look’s like God is in the process of loosening the bands of Orion!!!

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

God, while pointing out how all-powerful he was, asked Job if he (Job) was able to "loose the bands of Orion" (Job 38.31).

"Canst thou . . . loose the bands of Orion?"

Garrett P. Serviss, the noted astronomer, wrote about the bands of Orion in his book CURIOSITIES OF THE SKY.

At the present time this band consists of an almost perfect straight line. In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam, will approach each other and form a naked-eye double; but the third, Alnitak, will drift away eastward so that the band will no longer exist.
Thus, these stars that we see forming one of the bands of Orion are like three ships out on the high seas that happen to be in line at the present moment, but in the future will be separated by thousands of miles of space. In fact, all these stars that at the present time constitute the constellation of Orion are bound for different ports, and all are journeying to different corners of the universe, so that the bands are being dissolved.

Look’s like God is in the process of loosening the bands of Orion!!!

1> All stars are in motion, no big deal.

2> Please share any facts to support your positive claim that something called "God" is in the process of doing anything.

3> Glad you brought up the 'story' of Job.

How would you like me to bet someone about your loyalty? I will kill everyone that you love to test your loyalty and to prove my point. But don't worry, I will give you another set of loved ones, to replace the ones that I killed, after I win the bet. That is the story of Job. Very scientific, isn't it?



stU

[redeemed2]

Boyton,

Why are you so angry with God?

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by redeemed2

Boyton,

Why are you so angry with God?

Angry with who, what, or where?

Please state a positive premise.


I might ask you, "Why are you so angry with Citfurcupritom?" This question is as meaningless as your question. I would have to make a positive statement about "Citfurcupritom" before you could respond. Do you understand?


stU

[Dillon Hunt]

In the same chapter of Job, God asked Job:

THE PLEIADES

"Canst thou bind the sweet influence of the Pleiades . . . ?" Notice the amazing astronomical contrast with the Pleiades. The seven stars of the Pleiades are in reality a grouping of 250 suns. Photographs now reveal that 250 blazing suns in this group are all traveling together in one common direction.

From Lick Observatory came this statement of Dr. Robert J. Trumpler:

The Pleiades stars may thus be compared to a swarm of birds, flying together to a distant goal. This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are not a temporary or accidental agglomeration of stars, but a system in which the stars are bound together by a close kinship.

INCREDIBLE! God's laws of cosmology are loosing the constellation Orion. Sometime in the far distant future, Orion will be no more. Conversely, wonder of wonders—every last one of the 250 blazing suns in the Pleiades are ordained of God to orbit together in their symmetrical beauty throughout eternity.

[BoyntonStu]

Dillon,

About how old is the Earth?

On what factual information do you base your answer?


stU

In his post immediately above, stU puts it to Dillon to support his opinion with facts about the universe. Although some find this kind of post annoying, it does make its point that it is best to be able to support one's belief with rational thought. In one of his posts, stU did state that his belief is in the scientific method, not in "god". I gathered thereby that stU is probably an athiest who wants scientific facts offered to back up one's belief in a Creator. In that light, I again turn to the well written opinion of one of our Founding Fathers -

from http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm :

Turning again to Thomas Paine we find the following pertinent observation he made regarding atheism in a speech to the Society of Theophilanthropists in Paris, France, shortly after the French Revolution:

"In the first place, admitting matter to have properties, as we see it has, the question still remains, how came matter by those properties? To this they will answer, that matter possessed those properties eternally. This is not solution, but assertion; and to deny it is as impossible of proof as to assert it.

"It is then necessary to go further; and therefore I say - if there exist a circumstance that is not a property of matter, and without which the universe, or to speak in a limited degree, the solar system composed of planets and a sun, could not exist a moment, all the arguments of atheism, drawn from properties of matter, and applied to account for the universe, will be overthrown, and the existence of a superior cause, or that which man calls God, becomes discoverable, as is before said, by natural philosophy.

"I go now to show that such a circumstance exists, and what it is.

"The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself.

"It is because motion is not a property of matter, that perpetual motion is an impossibility in the hand of every being but that of the Creator of motion. When the pretenders to atheism can produce perpetual motion, and not till then, they may expect to be credited.

"The natural state of matter, as to place, is a state of rest. Motion, or change of place, is the effect of an external cause acting upon matter. As to that faculty of matter that is called gravitation, it is the influence which two or more bodies have reciprocally on each other to unite and be at rest. Everything which has hitherto been discovered, with respect to the motion of the planets in the system, relates only to the laws by which motion acts, and not to the cause of motion.

"Gravitation, so far from being the cause of motion to the planets that compose the solar system, would be the destruction of the solar system, were revolutionary motion to cease; for as the action of spinning upholds a top, the revolutionary motion upholds the planets in their orbits, and prevents them from gravitating and forming one mass with the sun. In one sense of the word, philosophy knows, and atheism says, that matter is in perpetual motion.

"But the motion here meant refers to the state of matter, and that only on the surface of the Earth. It is either decomposition, which is continually destroying the form of bodies of matter, or recomposition, which renews that matter in the same or another form, as the decomposition of animal or vegetable substances enters into the composition of other bodies.

"But the motion that upholds the solar system, is of an entirely different kind, and is not a property of matter. It operates also to an entirely different effect. It operates to perpetual preservation, and to prevent any change in the state of the system.

"Giving then to matter all the properties which philosophy knows it has, or all that atheism ascribes to it, and can prove, and even supposing matter to be eternal, it will not account for the system of the universe, or of the solar system, because it will not account for motion, and it is motion that preserves it.

"When, therefore, we discover a circumstance of such immense importance, that without it the universe could not exist, and for which neither matter, nor any nor all the properties can account, we are by necessity forced into the rational conformable belief of the existence of a cause superior to matter, and that cause man calls GOD.

"As to that which is called nature, it is no other than the laws by which motion and action of every kind, with respect to unintelligible matter, are regulated. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature's God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the power that ordained them.

"God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."

In addition to motion acting as a perpetual preserver, it also acts as a continual source for the universe's constant expansion. Every second the universe is expanding at the speed of light (186,282 miles per second). According to Astronomy Magazine, 2/14/92, page 49, "Astronomers presently believe there isn't enough mass in the universe, even with dark matter, to stop its expansion." This exciting realization should fill everyone with unlimited appreciation when we realize we are a part of this amazing and spectacular universe! The Creator is immeasurably generous!

In ATHEISM - THE CASE AGAINST GOD, the author writes, " . . .when I claim not to believe in a god, I mean that I do not believe in anything "above" or "beyond" the natural, knowable universe." Deism teaches that the Creator is knowable and discoverable through the creation itself. It is very understandable how people could be turned off by man-made religions and superstitions with their bombings and financial beg-a-thons, and confuse artificial or revealed religion with God. However, the atheist attitude of accepting things simply as not knowable is dangerous to the progress of humanity. Many things were not knowable in the past that are knowable today. At one time Europeans believed it was impossible to know what was on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean: but they were wrong. As we learn more about the sciences, we are learning more about the Power that put those principles in place. An eternal Being, as Thomas Paine said, "whose power is equal to His will."

[redeemed2]

The key to your statement is rational thought.

Stu would use his philosophy, and call it science.

Look up an explanation of the scientific method and you tell me how evolution can be catagorized as science.

The key to your statement is rational thought.

Stu would use his philosophy, and call it science.

I know he often posted scientific articles for purposes of sparking a discussion, and when the discussion ensued, there were often clashes of philosophical and theosophical points of view.

Look up an explanation of the scientific method and you tell me how evolution can be catagorized as science.

I think the scientific method has been used for purposes of attempting to support and validate the THEORY of evolution... and personally, as I've said here before, I find that the THEORY of evolution has some gaping holes in it. Creation has to be considered a theory as well, because no proof of creation exists via the scientific method, either. I am always excited by new discoveries and how they might fill in the gaps one way or the other.

I relate to the Deist perspective because belief in a Creator is based upon the indications of intelligent design which are evident in the universe... and also because no one is left out or rejected for failing to follow some particular religious practice or subscribe to some allegedly "revealed" belief system.

*

Originally Posted by redeemed2

The key to your statement is rational thought.

Stu would use his philosophy, and call it science.

Look up an explanation of the scientific method and you tell me how evolution can be catagorized as science.

IF YOU'RE SO CONVICED EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC I SUGGEST YOU CHECKOUT THIS SITE: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Thre...?action=tf&f=8 AND JOIN IN THE DEBATE.

IT APPEARS SUIJURIS.NET IS NOT THE PROPER VENUE TO DISCUSS SCIENTIFIC ISSUES. BIBLE THUMPING WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED SEEMS TO BE THE LAW AROUND HERE.