Mis-information

[nobspeople]

I've heard some believers say things like fossils, dinosaurs, vestigial leg bones in whales, and the like that comes up in science is the devil planting misinformation to prevent people from believing in the bible, god et al.
What are your thought?
Do you think god would allow the devil to do such a thing?

[Jemima]

I've heard some believers say things like fossils, dinosaurs, vestigial leg bones in whales, and the like that comes up in science is the devil planting misinformation to prevent people from believing in the bible, god et al.
What are your thought?
Do you think god would allow the devil to do such a thing?

As one who was once an evolutionist, it was one of the things that tipped me out of church....how could they hang on to outdated beliefs when science had the proof that they were wrong?
Then I began to search for the truth and it was in a place that I had not anticipated to find it.....the Bible. I actually undertook a word search in the original Hebrew language and made an interesting discovery.....both science and the church (YEC's) have assumed a lot, but I believe that both are both in error.

Let me explain why....

YEC's for example have apparently not studied the Hebrew word "yohm" which is translated "day" in Genesis. It doesn't just mean a 24 hour period.....it can mean a period of undetermined length.....so what does that suggest? What if the creative "days" were not mere 24 hour periods, but very long epochs of time in which the creative acts took place? That would mean that God is not a magician waving his hand and speaking creation into existence....it more depicts a purposeful Creator who had all the time in the world to experiment and to tweak his creations in the time he allotted for each "day" to include. We see that each period ended with an expression of satisfaction about what was achieved thus far. This was no mere magic act. It means that the whole creative process could well have been millions of years long. God is not subject to earth time.

What if Genesis verse 1 is also separated from verse 2 by millions of years? There is no timeframe mentioned. It is a timeline of what took place, and in what order...but not how long it all took.

Gen 1:2 is the beginning of the earth's transformation from a formless void to something that could host an abundance of life.
Genesis 1 is a description of that process, and the first "life" form to be brought into existence was....vegetation. What does vegetation need to grow? Light, moisture and fertile soil. Genesis confirms that all three were present. What does soil need to break down expired vegetation? Bacteria...not mentioned in the creation account because there would have been no point.....humans would not discover these microscopic creatures for thousands of years.

So what about science then? How accurate is the science? It doesn't really take much investigation to see how much conjecture, assumption and suggestion is contained in their explanations as to how life evolved. And whatever you do, don't mention abiogenesis in the same breath because they will be quick to divorce themselves from any reference to it. (as if the two are not remotely connected.)

When you ask the scientists for "proof" of their evolutionary 'chains', they are quick to tell you that there is no "proof"......only "evidence".....so how reliable is that evidence? It is at the mercy of their interpretation. Adaptation provides the basis for belief in macro-evolution, even though adaptation has never been shown to take a single creature outside of its taxonomy. All adaptation does is make minor changes to a single creature and modify it to fit a new environment or food source. Darwin's observations confirmed that the finches were still finches, the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still very identifiable as tortoises. None of them were on their way to becoming something else. So adaptation is provable, there is plenty of evidence for that.....amoebas to dinosaurs is a fairy story with nothing to confirm it but "belief"....the very thing that believers in an Intelligent Creator get criticized for.

So those who want to see God as a 7 literal day magician, will find him....though they will struggle with many unanswerable questions......and those who want to eliminate that Creator, can interpret their evidence to convincingly make him disappear.....poof! But they too will have many unanswerable questions. Meshing the two with actual facts, eliminates all those questions.

So I see the Bible and true science (as opposed to theoretical science) can co-exist quite beautifully without sacrificing either one.
The devil doesn't plant anything but false ideas, making humans think that they thought of it themselves.

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #26]

Ok. First, don't see this as Personal - it is an argument about the situation. 'You' is the populace that is being fed misinformation, which examples I gave regarding the whale bones - which you mentioned in your post as (so I recall) something science might have misinterpreted. 'We' are those of us who can clear up the misunderstanding, or deliberate misrepresentation.

I did not suggest vestigial whale bones were something that science might have misinterpreted. The only reason I even mentioned them is because they were an example from the OP, but I did not suggest that they were an example of misinformation.

I have to disagree with your apparent suggestion that nothing (presented as 'fact' by science) is sure; 'some things are bound to change as evidence is presented'.

I also never suggested that at all.

This is what I said:

I do not think every conclusion in science is accurate (some things are bound to change as more evidence is presented, as more advanced tools are created to discover that evidence, etc.), but I have no problem with it.

Do you disagree with what I actually said?

Not as such, but let us not be ingenuous. If you weren't implying that evidence might one day appear that would overturn science and invalidate (particularly) evolution in the sense of an alternative to divine creation and (supposedly) make 'God' the only possible explanation, what was the point in mentioning it at all?

To clarify:
Trans.

The earth thought to be flat, now shown to be not flat is a Fact (no matter what the flat earthists believe) where science corrected an original misinterpretation of the observed data.

(You) Sure.
Thais is Fact in sense 2. What is demonstrably what we know that is shown to be the reality.

(You) And if that had been stated as a fact (or as a truth) at one point, then whoever made that statement would have been wrong. Human error (misunderstanding).

That is fact is sense 1. What was the reality, even when people had it wrong.

Confusing the two led ( I suggested) to you and your opponent talking at cross -purposes.

I'm sorry, but are you sure you're not mixing me up with someone else? I did not have an opponent on this thread with whom I could have been talking at cross-purposes with, over fact in sense 1 or 2.


Peace again to you!
[/quote]

Perhaps I have confused you with someone else. If so, apologies. However the point itself is valid. 'Facts' can have two meanings. It's a useful distinction to bear in mind.

[brunumb]

YEC's for example have apparently not studied the Hebrew word "yohm" which is translated "day" in Genesis. It doesn't just mean a 24 hour period.....it can mean a period of undetermined length.....so what does that suggest? What if the creative "days" were not mere 24 hour periods, but very long epochs of time in which the creative acts took place?

How does that square with statements like this?

Genesis 1-5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[Jemima]

YEC's for example have apparently not studied the Hebrew word "yohm" which is translated "day" in Genesis. It doesn't just mean a 24 hour period.....it can mean a period of undetermined length.....so what does that suggest? What if the creative "days" were not mere 24 hour periods, but very long epochs of time in which the creative acts took place?

How does that square with statements like this?

Genesis 1-5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." A complete statement.....all of universe comes into existence in one almighty act of creation.
Science say so too.

"2 And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."
During the first creative period we see the earth being shaped and formed and there was darkness over the surface of the earth. The Book of Job speaks about the earth being "swaddled " in clouds, hence light from the already existing sun could not penetrate to the surface of the planet. There is no time frame again, so this first creative period could well have taken millions of years, but it set the scene for what was to follow...

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

So the first thing that God provided was light, which is vital for all living things. Probably by removing the cloud layers so that the light could penetrate to the surface and allow for the growth of vegetation to follow. Food was already there waiting for the creatures who would use it as food. According to Genesis 1:30..."and to every animal of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so." Every creature began as a vegetarian. Some of the largest and most powerful creatures on earth are still vegetarians.

The earth's rotation determined the day and night, not previously discernible.

The fact that there was "evening and morning" also means that these were not 24 hour days. How many hours are there between evening and morning?
Not 24......So in saying that, God was really talking about the close of one day (creative period) and the beginning of the next. Each "day" ended with a declaration of his satisfaction thus far.

Do we not talk about the "dawn of a new era"? Or "in my Grandfather's day"....we are not talking about 24 hour days are we?

[brunumb]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." A complete statement.....all of universe comes into existence in one almighty act of creation.
Science say so too.

Depending on what you mean by "all of universe", science most certainly does not say that. The current iteration of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago while Earth only formed about 4.5 billion years ago, so not in "one almighty act of creation".

[TRANSPONDER]

YEC's for example have apparently not studied the Hebrew word "yohm" which is translated "day" in Genesis. It doesn't just mean a 24 hour period.....it can mean a period of undetermined length.....so what does that suggest? What if the creative "days" were not mere 24 hour periods, but very long epochs of time in which the creative acts took place?

How does that square with statements like this?

Genesis 1-5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." A complete statement.....all of universe comes into existence in one almighty act of creation.
Science say so too.

"2 And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."
During the first creative period we see the earth being shaped and formed and there was darkness over the surface of the earth. The Book of Job speaks about the earth being "swaddled " in clouds, hence light from the already existing sun could not penetrate to the surface of the planet. There is no time frame again, so this first creative period could well have taken millions of years, but it set the scene for what was to follow...

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

So the first thing that God provided was light, which is vital for all living things. Probably by removing the cloud layers so that the light could penetrate to the surface and allow for the growth of vegetation to follow. Food was already there waiting for the creatures who would use it as food. According to Genesis 1:30..."and to every animal of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so." Every creature began as a vegetarian. Some of the largest and most powerful creatures on earth are still vegetarians.

The earth's rotation determined the day and night, not previously discernible.

The fact that there was "evening and morning" also means that these were not 24 hour days. How many hours are there between evening and morning?
Not 24......So in saying that, God was really talking about the close of one day (creative period) and the beginning of the next. Each "day" ended with a declaration of his satisfaction thus far.

Do we not talk about the "dawn of a new era"? Or "in my Grandfather's day"....we are not talking about 24 hour days are we?

So the argument is that, while it seems that Genesis is describing an earth with day and night, morning and evening before the sun and moon were made to 'mark' them, what was actually happening (according to Creationist theory) is that the earth was covered with cloud so the sun (and moon) couldn't be seen, but the sun was already there, producing day and night as they are now (other than being 2 billion years long).

The problem there is that it describes the misperception of what was actually going on by someone on the surface of the earth. But who was that? Who was it there looking up at the cloud - cover from the ground for 7 of the 2 billion year long 'Days'? Man hadn't been created yet. It can only be God telling the (later) writer of Genesis. Well why not describe it as it actually was rather than describe it incorrectly so that it would conflict with the actual facts as worked out by science? Why describe it like a Babylonian who was just guessing how creation was done?

Ok, I know. 'God has his reasons' and 'God had to describe it like that or humans wouldn't believe Him'. But at least get the order of creation right and say the sun was already there but the clouds obscured it. Is that so unbelievable?

It makes more sense, doesn't it that Genesis is simply wrong, rather than produce these excuses. Same with plants before fish There were fish before plants appeared on land, because life actually started in the sea, not on land. Same with the Flood. We had someone here who at least didn't deny that geology refutes the flood, argue that God removed all trace of the Flood while telling us all about it in Genesis, mind. Can you wonder that any reasonable person would simply dismiss Genesis as myth (and based on the earlier Mesopotamian legends, too) and not jump through hoops to explain away the evidence that debunks Genesis?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to tam in post #30]

Because people use 'the bible' as if it is a single book and a single word. I was just being accurate; I did not mean to detract from the point.

Thanks for the clarification. Everyone's experience in life is different (much to the chagrin of some on this site it seems), but I've never experienced any person thinking the way you described. I'm not saying you're wrong, just, well, it seems odd anyone with a solid mental state would think t is a single book and a single word.

I used the bible to counter what you think should be happening in Christianity if indeed God were real.

Basically the same concept: you used the bible to try to prove (which is debatable at the very least) what's happening isn't within christianity, which is based on the bible. It's all circular reasoning - the same circular reasoning to use the bible to prove itself true.

No, because - as you said you believed - not many people truly believe what Christ has said, or that He is alive.

I understand your confusion as I never once stated I believe "not many people truly believe what Christ has said, or that He is alive." Quite the contrary - many people truly believe christ said this or that and is alive.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Jemima in post #31]

how could they hang on to outdated beliefs when science had the proof that they were wrong?

Many reasons, I suspect. Maybe they don't want to admit they're wrong, maybe they haven't had a chance to contort the bible to agree with science, maybe they just ignore it altogether, maybe they've been brainwashed so much they really don't believe it....who knows anymore.

So I see the Bible and true science (as opposed to theoretical science) can co-exist quite beautifully without sacrificing either one.

A lot of people are in 'the same boat' as you in this regard

[Bust Nak]

So what about science then? How accurate is the science? It doesn't really take much investigation to see how much conjecture, assumption and suggestion is contained in their explanations as to how life evolved. And whatever you do, don't mention abiogenesis in the same breath because they will be quick to divorce themselves from any reference to it. (as if the two are not remotely connected.)

We do that because they are not remotely connected in the sense that abiogenesis can be falsified and it wouldn't discredit evolution.

When you ask the scientists for "proof" of their evolutionary 'chains', they are quick to tell you that there is no "proof"......only "evidence".....so how reliable is that evidence? It is at the mercy of their interpretation. Adaptation provides the basis for belief in macro-evolution, even though adaptation has never been shown to take a single creature outside of its taxonomy. All adaptation does is make minor changes to a single creature and modify it to fit a new environment or food source. Darwin's observations confirmed that the finches were still finches, the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still very identifiable as tortoises. None of them were on their way to becoming something else. So adaptation is provable, there is plenty of evidence for that.....amoebas to dinosaurs is a fairy story with nothing to confirm it but "belief".

First of all, amoebas to dinosaurs is not a thing in evolution, amoebas are modern creatures. Think of a typical family tree, grandparents to parents to child is a thing, but cousins to parents to child aren't.

More importantly there is no such thing as taking a creature outside of its taxonomy in evolution, if macro-evolution is true, then we expect to find that finches would remain finches and iguanas would remain iguanas. That finches were still finches and iguanas still iguanas, confirms these predictions of macro-evolution. As for the evidence being at the mercy of scientists interpretation, there is no better alternative scientific interpretation; it had withstood 150 years worth of scientific challenges, and that much is a fact. That is good enough for me. Whether it is good enough or not, I will leave for you to decide, I'm mainly here to attack your objection re: nothing to confirm it.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #30]

Because people use 'the bible' as if it is a single book and a single word. I was just being accurate; I did not mean to detract from the point.

Thanks for the clarification. Everyone's experience in life is different (much to the chagrin of some on this site it seems), but I've never experienced any person thinking the way you described. I'm not saying you're wrong, just, well, it seems odd anyone with a solid mental state would think t is a single book and a single word.

To be clear, I myself do not think that. And surely you know that much (not all) of "Christendom" believes that the Bible is to be taken as a whole (one book), as well as believing it to be THE word of God.

(Christ is THE Word of God, not the bible.)

I used the bible to counter what you think should be happening in Christianity if indeed God were real.

Basically the same concept: you used the bible to try to prove (which is debatable at the very least) what's happening isn't within christianity, which is based on the bible. It's all circular reasoning - the same circular reasoning to use the bible to prove itself true.

For argument's sake, IF Christianity were based on the bible, and someone made a statement about Christianity, then it would be valid to use the bible to test the accuracy of their statement. Correct?

No, because - as you said you believed - not many people truly believe what Christ has said, or that He is alive.

I understand your confusion as I never once stated I believe "not many people truly believe what Christ has said, or that He is alive." Quite the contrary - many people truly believe christ said this or that and is alive.

Okay then perhaps you could explain what you meant by the following:

I said: But there are not many people who believe Him, truly, or even that He is truly alive and capable of leading and teaching and training His sheep, Himself.

You went even further and said: Not many? I'd bet there are simply a 'handful' throughout history, when it comes right down to it. Thus far, I've not met many in person or online, based on their actions and (online at least) their words.


Peace again.