This question has often boggled my mind. Eveloution and Creation are worlds apart. Eveloution is the result of scientific endevors while Creation is the result of a good immagination. I think it funny that in Genesis on the 1st day god created Day and Night and he seperated Day from Night yet he did not create the Sun and the Moon untill the 4th day. If he already had light and dark, day and Night then why did he have to create the Sun on the 4th day?
Can you be Religous and a Scientist
- Thread starter Starman
- Start date
Of course you can be religious and a scientist - there are many theistical scientists of all creeds. You can be religious and not necessarily believe every word of Genesis, too.
It's ironic that you say that the Creation story is the result of a good imagination - it seems to me that as we have used science to expand our view of the Universe in space and in time to a level which is beyond Human comprehension, that it should be the ultimate blasphemy to imagine that whatever God created it actually dealt in such tiny insignificance as a 6,000 year timespan for the Universe and the sky as a metal bowl over a flat earth - and then subsequently having to laboriously create each creature separately. Einstein spoke of the religious awe experienced by those scientists who contemplate the Universe in all its practically illimitable immensity. A God who just created the Earth, 6,000 stars and each one of billions of life forms one at a time, is a God who has no imagination, in my view.
It's ironic that you say that the Creation story is the result of a good imagination - it seems to me that as we have used science to expand our view of the Universe in space and in time to a level which is beyond Human comprehension, that it should be the ultimate blasphemy to imagine that whatever God created it actually dealt in such tiny insignificance as a 6,000 year timespan for the Universe and the sky as a metal bowl over a flat earth - and then subsequently having to laboriously create each creature separately. Einstein spoke of the religious awe experienced by those scientists who contemplate the Universe in all its practically illimitable immensity. A God who just created the Earth, 6,000 stars and each one of billions of life forms one at a time, is a God who has no imagination, in my view.
Yes
At least I've heard that there are many scientists who are religuous, although 'they don't want to admit it.'
The Bible is often written in symbolic language. The day and night seems to represent the two 'opposing' forces in nature.
The OT is especially meant to be understood by people who lived at that time. Also, it's best read by those who have obtained the "Holy spirit".
Starman said:
The Bible is often written in symbolic language. The day and night seems to represent the two 'opposing' forces in nature.
The OT is especially meant to be understood by people who lived at that time. Also, it's best read by those who have obtained the "Holy spirit".
bible was writen by people who knew nothing about the world,and universe,so they made helluva lot of mistakes and contradictions simply because they were lying/making up fairy tales about creationYorda said:
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
yes people who knew nothing about science,evolution,and what makes the world turn.
goddidit was the answer to everything then,whats sad is that even today many people still believe in those fairy tales
Evolution is a religion. Evolution is based upon philisophical beliefs not science.
Here's a link about a leading Evolutionist, Professor Michael Ruse - who still believes in Evolution, who actually has the courage to admit, in a public forum, that Evolution is a religion and not science.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/ruse.html
Here's a link about a leading Evolutionist, Professor Michael Ruse - who still believes in Evolution, who actually has the courage to admit, in a public forum, that Evolution is a religion and not science.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/ruse.html
The bible story of creation is told from the point of view of someone standing on the surface of the Earth. The bible says God created the Heavens and the Earth, prior to the first day (prior to the first light/dark period, the Earth was already there and was already covered with water). When God said "Let there be light" it does not say God created light, but more like "Let the light come in" - like pulling back a curtain or opening a shutter (pulling back a cloud layer?). On the fourth day, it does not say God created the sun, moon and stars (the Hebrew word "Bara", or "Create", is not used) but has a simple acknowledgement that God made them using the word "asah" which means simply "to do" or "to prepare". So, God had prepared these great lights, the greater to rule the day and the lesser, with the stars, to rule the night (sounds kind of poetic doesn't it). This passage is more along the lines of a thinning cloud layer (like exists on Venus) which thins enough on the first day to let in the light but not see the sun, and a continuation of that thinning until the fourth day when the clouds had dissipated enought so the sun could be seen. Genesis does not say God created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day.Starman said:
ROFL!David F. said:
Another example of how reliogionists distort the Bible.
You see, that's the cool thing about the bible. No one can really distort it since anyone can go and read it for themselves.
I would encourage anyone who wants to read this themselves to do some simple study, and you can use the tools right on the Internet. Here is a source where you can go and look at the verses themselves and click on each word to determine its true Hebrew meaning - without having to trust me at all: http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi
Matrix, what "pisses you off" is that evil hates the good and liars hate the truth. If you were really confident in your beliefs then nothing I could say or do would really matter to you.
I would encourage anyone who wants to read this themselves to do some simple study, and you can use the tools right on the Internet. Here is a source where you can go and look at the verses themselves and click on each word to determine its true Hebrew meaning - without having to trust me at all: http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi
Matrix, what "pisses you off" is that evil hates the good and liars hate the truth. If you were really confident in your beliefs then nothing I could say or do would really matter to you.
Last edited:
David F.
If you want to discuss the Bible, maybe you should start another thread. i can think of at least one person who would be interested.
For the purpose of this thread, however, suffice it to say that your reading of both the English and the Hebrew is distorted.
If you want to discuss the Bible, maybe you should start another thread. i can think of at least one person who would be interested.
For the purpose of this thread, however, suffice it to say that your reading of both the English and the Hebrew is distorted.
Please don't leave me hanging Bob... If you are going to accuse me then please be more specific. What verses/words did I misread? Please tell me Bob. Please don't just make generalized unsubstantiated accusations. Please give me specifics... Please don't be like most Darwinists and just name call in an attempt to intimidate. Please tell me Bob.
I really think it belongs in a separate thread, but since you ask....David F. said:
In an attempt to reconcile the obvious inconsistency of light before plants and plants before sun in Genesis 1, you made an issue of the difference between the Hebrew words "bara = create" and "asah = prepare".
Take a look at Genesis 1:26, "...God said, Let us make (asah) man in our image....". But in the very next verse, verse 27, it's "...God created (bara) man in his own image...."
The distinction that you imply simply isn't there.
You also mention a "thinning cloud layer", which you apparently pulled out of thin air, because it isn't in Genesis at all.
These are just two quick examples to avoid boring those who aren't interested.
As I said, if you want further enlightenment, start a new thread.
Very Good Bob. You actually gave some facts instead of just idle accusations. Good work.sideshowbob said:
I don't know why you would not want this discussion to be on this thread since it is a direct answer to the question given in the very first post. I think this is an excellent place for the answer to that question. I don't think this is boring at all.
Now, about the words you describe from my earlier post:
As for the word 'asah, in case you don't want to bother to click on the link I provided, it means:
to do, fashion, accomplish, make , work, make, produce, to do, to work, to deal (with), to act, act with effect, effect, to make, to make, to produce, to prepare, to make (an offering), to attend to, put in order, to observe, celebrate, to acquire (property), to appoint, ordain, institute, to bring about, to use, to spend, pass, to be done, to be made, to be produced, to be offered, to be observed, to be used, to be made
As you can see, the word 'asah is a very broad action verb but it does not in any way mean "create" or cause to come to be from nothing. When you make something, you build it or put it together out of existing materials. This is not the same as bara' which refers to creating something new. God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning - before the first day. God made/prepared the sun, moon and stars and they showed up, or you could see them, on the fourth day.Genesis 1
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The example you cite is excellent because it says God both "made" man and "created" man. So there is a part of man that is made from existing materials (his body, from the dust of the Earth) and a part that is created (man's spirit which is the eternal part), or not made from existing parts.1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
As to the clouds - was I not clear that it was something like clouds, or curtains or shutters or something which blocked the sun.
Let's be careful with our words Bob. I did not say it was clouds, I said it was something along the lines of a thinning cloud layer. Surely you can see that I was not claiming direct knowledge, or that the bible said it was cloud, but rather I was giving an example of something it might have been. Strain a little and see if you can see the difference. I do not know what it was which made the sun not visible, but clouds might be a good guess. You are welcome to make another guess - maybe a dust storm high in the atmosphere? Maybe the atmosphere was more opaque/translucent and not nearly transperant as it is today? In any case, the word for "Let there be" is "Hayah" which means:David F. said:
to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out, to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass, to come about, come to pass, to come into being, become, to arise, appear...
So you can see that there is no confusing the idea that God created light on the first day. He simply made it happen, or fall out, or arise, not created.I don't see that I have misrepresented any of these words nor that I have read either the English or the Hebrew wrong in any way. Please enlighten me further Bob.
Last edited:
I only meant that I thought we were getting too detailed about one specific area. The title of the thread is about "religion" and "science". It was my impression that Starman was only using the creation as one example of many.David F. said:
No need. I have a number of reference works attached to my onboard Bible - just a click away.
So you're introducing the concept of creation ex nihilo? I think that's an unecessary complication, and one that is difficult to justify Biblically.
This is another bare assertion which is difficult to justify Biblically.
You see, this is why a lot of people have a problem with the Bible. You are trying to tell them that God mysteriously created light and then the sun, moon and stars just "showed up" three days later. Do you not understand how people might see a conflict there?
That's a cute little story and it has it's value from a religious viewpoint, but the fact remains that that is not what the text says.
The words "bara" and "asah" are used in two consecutive verses to describe the exact same thing. Your interpretation is all well and good, but it ain't in the Book.
Whether it was clouds or something mysteriously "like" clouds, it isn't in the text. It's a fiction.
It isn't that the sun wasn't "visible". It wasn't there because it wasn't made until days later.
Again, this is the kind of double-talk that turns people off from the Bible.
To say that there is a huge difference between "making something" and "making something happen" is just a semantic exercise.
You have shown that there is one specific interpretation which can reconcile the Bible's creation story with science. But your interpretaion of the Bible is far from definitive. More importantly, it is far from satisfying to most people.
David F. said:
David the amount of creativity that you put forth in your explainations is impressive to say the least.
A Scientist studies the natural reproduction of different life forms and it is fairly well known that Humans reproduce by having sex.
How can a Scientist believe the story of the immaculate conception, describing the birth of Jesus Christ, implying that he was conceived by God without a male sperm donor.
In Science there is evidence of creatures on Earth becoming A sexual however there are no cases of Humans becoming A sexual except in the Bible.
Opps the Bible does give a Human lineage to Jesus. “He is a descendant of King David through his Father Joseph”.
In scientific terms this is very hard to reconcile. In order to be a Scientist you must constantly experiment in order to establish theory. Experimentation leads to changing laws, written text, understanding, and a host of other things.
Most Scientists would agree that change is a universal constant. The Bible has not changed in 2000 years. That in itself is very un-scientific and conflicts with the basis of today’s Science.
Last edited: