Bible and Science

[pelathais]

Gordon Glover is the author of a book that I have enjoyed recently entitled Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and
the Theology of Creation. Gordon has also made a series of videos available for free on his site and through YouTube.

The video below is produced by some one who goes by the nom de guerre of "nephilimfree." It is a response to Gordon's video series and includes some excerpts from them. About the time index of 5:07, "nephilimfree" reveals the real bone he has to pick with Gordon's presentation.

How do you feel about those points of the Bible that at least appear to be "out of date" scientifically? How much can, or should we use our observations of the natural world to help us to understand the message of the Bible?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCEpnfIDeEw

[Timmy]

So the Earth really is the center of the universe? Cool! I bet it's really just 6000 years old, too!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Timmy

So the Earth really is the center of the universe? Cool! I bet it's really just 6000 years old, too!

What got me was that this guy's arguments sounded so much like the Young Earth crowd's. He kept making an appeal to the "authority of the Word of God," and a very literal interpretation of all passages.

At what point is the sincere Christian supposed to simply wake up and smell the coffee?

[jfrog]

Please tell me the guy was being sarcastic. If not this speaks volumes that when someone believes something strong enough nothing will overturn that belief.

[RandyWayne]

This guy making the commentary represents the looniest of the typical Art Bell callers. He uses a long-exposure photo of the stars taken at the North pole and assumes THAT is proof that the Earth is stationary (otherwise, how would they move in a circle without streaking? he says). I've seen similar photos of the Earth taken from orbit which seem to show a black disk at the poles, and this is used as proof that the Earth is hollow.

How many people out there are "almost ready to accept Christianity" but are thrown off base by guys like this?

He wasn't even a great video editor because the gentlemen he aims his comments at does a MUCH better job at making his case.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

This guy making the commentary represents the looniest of the typical Art Bell callers. He uses a long-exposure photo of the stars taken at the North pole and assumes THAT is proof that the Earth is stationary (otherwise, how would they move in a circle without streaking? he says). I've seen similar photos of the Earth taken from orbit which seem to show a black disk at the poles, and this is used as proof that the Earth is hollow.

How many people out there are "almost ready to accept Christianity" but are thrown off base by guys like this?

He wasn't even a great video editor because the gentlemen he aims his comments at does a MUCH better job at making his case.

The picture of the star trails (and I'm sure you know this Randy) is made by leaving a camera' shutter open for an extended period of time while it's pointed at the North Star.

Since the North Star is just a bit off the mark from absolute true North (1/2 a degree?) it makes the small circle at the center of the picture. Other stars make the other circles as the earth turns on its axis. Any of the "streaks" that he was looking for would have been caused by airplanes and such.

He also mentions the "math of William Dembsky." He states that Dembsky has "proven" that the sun lacks the gravitational math to hold the earth and the other planets in orbit. I seriously doubt Dembsky ever said such a thing. And besides, where would the earth get enough mass to hold the sun and all the planets in orbit (not to mention the entire universe!)?

I just thought that his "argument" for a Geo-centric universe sounded like so many arguments that I've heard for a literal six day creation and a 6,000 year old earth.

[RandyWayne]

Natgeo (The National Geographic channel) has had some excellent shows on physics and astrophysics the past year. The question was posed during one, "where is the center the Universe, physically speaking?" and the answer is 'everywhere'. Most people assume that the Big Bang took place at a certain local when in fact it was actually an "explosions" of matter AND space. In that respect, the Earth IS the center of the Universe -so is every single galaxy in the Hubble Deep View photo. The space (ALL the space) we occupy originated in the same singularity that matter did.

By the way, I never heard of William Dembsky.

[Timmy]

BTW, that star trail photo argument is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time! Is he serious? Really? Amazing!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Timmy

BTW, that star trail photo argument is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time! Is he serious? Really? Amazing!

Yea, if he just did it in one night then it really is funny. If he did it over an entire year then the same stars wouldn't be in the sky every night of the year. If he did it over one night the stars should be going in circles. It would be caused by the rotation of the earth on it's axis.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Yea, if he just did it in one night then it really is funny. If he did it over an entire year then the same stars wouldn't be in the sky every night of the year. If he did it over one night the stars should be going in circles. It would be caused by the rotation of the earth on it's axis.

He musta been sick that day in third grade when they covered this stuff!