Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Climbing For Christ Australia 9-May-2010 At 5:10:54 PM another dave

Message

>>Guys do you realise that you are trying to compare a book which was written
>>over 2000 years ago with the modern scientific process.
>
>Not doing that at all. I was saying the modern scientific process has
>found many many things but not God.

Sorry I'll clarify genisis does not provide an alternative to evolution.

>>And in the case
>>of genesis was written by Moses (3300 years ago) from oral tradition.
>And
>>your conclusion is that its not written well by today’s scientific process
>>and therefore must be wrong/invalid.
>
>The bible, or any historical work, is not a scientific piece of work.
>The scientific process has nothing to do with whether a historical work
>is wrong or invalid.

Yes but so many people think it does

>>The current theories that are about are only best guesses as scientist
>>are unable to recreate those processes in the lab:
>>- Big bang theory currently requires nothing to explode into something
>
>Mathematics - They have maths that explain (not perfectly) the big bang.
>Observation - the further something is away from us the greater its speed
>is so it has a greater red shift. The red shift on some objects is enormous
>so they are calculated as being over 12 billion light years away. Everywhere
>you look it shows the same thing (no WE are not at the centre of the universe,
>everywhere is the centre of the universe).

Still best guess. Not proven.

>>- Origins of life, scientists currently have the right chemicals found
>>on prehistoric earth and currently can not get them to form a SIMPLE
>single
>>cell life form in lab conditions.
>
>No but they can form amino acids. The building blocks of proteins which
>are the building blocks of DNA.

Yeah but they can't make those building blocks fit together into DNA

>>Therefore I think it’s safe to say the book and the science don’t actually
>>contradict each other.
>
>There is no science in the book.

Exactly I agree its a historical book. I was trying to say that comparing the two into something meaning full is full of problems.