The cool thing about science is that God has led some of the greatest scientists to their discoveries. Copernicus - the father of modern science, Galileo - the courageous leader, Newton - widely considered the greatest scientist ever, were all Christians, all considered themselves inspired by God, and all thought that their faith played a critical role in their discoveries.

No surprises there, after all, to create this world we live in, God must be an incredible fan of science.

This quote from Isaiah has nothing to do with the earth being a sphere. In this time it was thought the earth was flat and circular and was surrounded by a body of water.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

Have a nice day.

Eric is so right. Even the other uses of the same Hebrew word elsewhere in the Bible refer to a circle in the 2-dimensional sense.

So this is not a compelling example of the Bible and science being in agreement. However, there are millions of other examples. I encourage anyone to check out the reasons.org site to find what real scientists are saying about the glorious agreement between science and the Bible. The heavens (and the microscopic wonders of matter and living things) declare the glory of God (as ultimate designer, builder, sustainer.)

"But God inspired the man that wrote it, ensuring that the Bible was correct in its terminology."

God should have told the man it was a sphere, not a circle. You'd think God would get the terminology correct.

" In fact, not only has science never proven any part of the Bible wrong, it actually continually proves it to be right."

Science has demonstrated that you can't live inside a big fish for several days.

There should be no conflict between the religious beliefs and science. Science should be able to look objectively at a claim, no matter what the origin, and follow the evidence where it leads. At some point, though, the majority of the scientific community decided that they must reject certain possibilities prior to examination. So, even if the evidence were to point to a supernatural explanation, that would be considered off limits. A couple of examples would be the creation of the universe and the origin of DNA. Scientists know that everything, including time and space, was created at a finite time in the past, and that our universe is fine-tuned for life to a degree that the element of chance is simply not a viable option. They have no good explanation for this, and no real theories other than to postulate an infinite number of universes, because when you bring in the infinite, anything is possible. Scientists also know that whenever you find complex information, you can attribute it to an intelligent agent. If you see words carved into a stone, you don't look for a naturalistic source. DNA is complicated informational code that holds the instructions for building every living thing. Yet, most scientists feel they must operate under the assumption that an intelligent agent as the author of that information is off limits. A good analogy for this type of mindset would be a detective who is taken into a room that contains a dead body with bullet holes in it. He's ready to begin the process of investigating the cause of death, and he's told he can put forth any theory as long as it's a natural one. In other words, he cannot even suggest that the cause could be due to an intelligent agent (i.e. a murder).

Ricky, your post is one of the more reasonable ones here in a while, however, I want to point out a couple of things.

"There should be no conflict between the religious beliefs and science."

True, I think if you have a loosy-goosy interpretation of the Bible, the Koran, Scientology, or whatever, but as soon as you go to the literalist path (i.e. Adam and Eve were real people, Noah shoved all the animals in the world onto one boat), then I think you run into a lot of problems and conflicts.

"Science should be able to look objectively at a claim, no matter what the origin, and follow the evidence where it leads."

Yes.

"At some point, though, the majority of the scientific community decided that they must reject certain possibilities prior to examination."

Not true. I was a research scientist for 10 years. I've never know a scientist to do this, or think this way. Again, these are myths that exist in the religious community only.

"So, even if the evidence were to point to a supernatural explanation, that would be considered off limits."

No it wouldn't. But how do you scientifically test supernatural events. Say you did an experiment "Get a million people to pray for my favourite baseball team, and then win!" How do you show it was God, or Allah, or whatever? There is no way to measure supernatural things. Mostly, they exist in people's heads only.

"... and that our universe is fine-tuned for life to a degree that the element of chance is simply not a viable option."

Again, more myths in the religious community. I've explained MANY times here how this is not a "chance" driven process, and how evolution works, but obviously not listening (or don't want to learn). I don't want to explain it again, but the general idea is we adapt to the environment, not the other way around.

"They have no good explanation for this, and no real theories other than to postulate an infinite number of universes, because when you bring in the infinite, anything is possible."

True. Infinity means infinite possibilities, but do you seriously think that some stuff humans invented 2,000 years ago (when the earth is billions of years old) is the answer to everything? It's extremely unlikely, so remote, I don't know why religions continue to exist.

"Scientists also know that whenever you find complex information, you can attribute it to an intelligent agent."

More myths in the religious community only.

"Yet, most scientists feel they must operate under the assumption that an intelligent agent as the author of that information is off limits."

No they don't. Just nothing leads them that way. Why? Because it's all crazy talk.

------

It is true that there are an infinite number of reasons, possibilities, etc. to everything, but as an atheist, I take the "I have no idea" path. As humans, we do not know a lot of things...but it is you folk who claim to have all the answers, without any good reasons at all.

Let's see here...I'm trying to find
a title for my PhD thesis on DNA origins- which sounds more likely: The Tendency of Nucleic Acids to Polymerize or A Magic Sky Wizard Did It?

Ok, I'll go with the sky wizard.

How do you scientifically test for universe-generating membranes in a dimension outside our own? You can't. It's just as plausible that God exists outside the universe. There is no more evidence for the latest scientific origins of the universe than there is for God, and I think there is more evidence for God due to the appearance of design. So, if the scientific community is going to consider metaphysical theories for the origin of the universe, the idea of a creator should at least be on the table as a possibility.

Also, it's not a myth that the universe is fine-tuned. Scientists would not be coming up with the idea of infinite universes to try to explain why it is that everything "appears" to be fine-tuned. Go ask any physicist about the various constants in the universe and what would happen if you changed any of them by the slightest amount. It's also not a myth that the existence of DNA points to design. There are no other examples of the existence of complex information where there is not an intelligent agent behind it. It's perfectly legitimate to look at design as a more than reasonable explanation.

Finally, even Richard Dawkins admits the problem. Following is the best that he can do when speaking about the "apparent design" of the universe. This is from his book "The God Delusion". It sounds like science of the gaps to me:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.

6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

I'm glad he leaves the door open somewhat by saying "almost certainly", because his conclusion is not at all supported by his premises. Just because he thinks Darwinism can explain all of the complexity and diversity in biology, that would not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist--even if that were true. Plus, he fails to take into account the problem of the origin of life, which is not touched by Darwinism, and for which there is no viable theory. So, what is his next move? He belittles those who believe in God by comparing him to a "flying spaghetti monster". Kind of like the "Magic Sky Wizard" comment, Erik.

O how the magic sky wizard is grieved by those who do not believe in Him.

Yes he is, Erik, regardless of the name by which He is called.

Such a wonderous and glorious world that mankind and science is continually trying to unlock the mysteries created by our Lord. Ever changing opinions have still been unable to explain it's mysteries. Even today on msn's webpage scientists think they have unlocked the mystery of the dead sea scrolls. Science is ever changing but His glory will endure forever.

"It's just as plausible that God exists outside the universe."

Yes, but Ricky, it is just as plausible that ANYTHING exists outside, within, the universe. Anything IS possible, yes. But it is UNLIKELY to be the irrational supersitions invented here on Earth in an infinitely small place in the universe.

Sure it's possible, but so is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as Erik pointed out.

That's not a logical argument, Jonathan. I don't have reason to believe in a flying spaghetti monster or the unicorns you sometimes bring up, any more than I do for storks bringing babies. But, I would not discount what science tells me about babies just because there is no evidence for storks.

I see more than enough evidence that there is a creator of the universe. Whether or not you believe the bible, or think it is full of myths, is irrelevant to question, although I do realize that today's devotion is Science Vs the Bible. I guess I'm somewhat off topic, but I don't think the example given in the devotion is particularly compelling. I do find that science tends to point to an intelligent designer, though.

Devotion says "not only has science never proven any part of the Bible wrong,".

From Deuteronomy:
33:17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns.

Someone please ask Bryant where we can go to find these unicorns.

Unicorns may have very well have been their name for some type of dinosaur, who knows. Could have just been their way of a description just like if I used a phrase to describe something that looked similar to the "idea" of something. He didn't say that He "was" a unicorn. Also, obviously, as you know, scientists agree there are many animals that are extinct and no longer exist. It's hard to imagine that some of the odd creatures in the world today actually exist if I hadn't seen them, much less what may have existed years ago. There are after all animals today that have horns, you know. So who knows what may have existed years ago, not that much of a stretch, really.

Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Whether translated unicorn, wild ox, or rhinoceros, etc. It's used to explain to men God's awesome power. I praise Him for His almighty, awesome, and glorious power! Everyone have a good night

34:6 The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. (34:6-8)"The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness ... their land shall be soaked with blood."
What the Bible says about Fat People
34:7 And the UNICORNS shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood

Didn't Jesus walk on water? That's pretty unscientific.

"Unicorns may have very well have been their name for some type of dinosaur, who knows."

Yes CF, but these people talkin' 'bout unicorns were 2,000 years ago, while dinosaurs were here 150 million years ago - huge difference.

If I'm not mistaken we're on here still talking about dinosaurs so how do we know they had no knowledge of them back then? Scientists still don't even understand how they built the pyramids. I'm personally not going to insult their knowledge or intelligence. So, I'm done for tonight discussing what they meant by unicorn, wild ox, or rhinoceros. Whichever translation you choose the main point is that it was strong and powerful. I'm moving on since I don't see where any of this pertains to the original devotion and of course as usual to let you have the last word :-) Have a good night-still praying for you.

I have never understood how someone can look through a telescope or a microscope and not see God.

When I read the Bible, it convicts me, corrects me, instructs me, and inspires me. When others read the Bible, they convict it, criticize it and reject it.

I guess the two are related. I believe in an ultimate source or order, moral authority, love and life (both temporal and eternal). Others reject any authority but that of their own mind. Selah.

Did anyone else see the story about the "unicorn" deer in the Italian nature park? It has one horn in the middle of its head while its twin has two horns. I found it to be a reasonable explanation of the unicorn's existence.

"so how do we know they had no knowledge of them back then?"

There are references to "dragon" bones found in Wucheng, Sichuan, China (written by Chang Qu) over 2,000 years ago, and many believe that these were probably dinosaur fossils. However, this was in China, not in the Middle East, where Christianity was originally fabricated.

However, it wasn't until much much later, in 1676, a huge femur was found in England by Reverend Plot. It was thought that the bone belonged to a "giant," but it was probably from a dinosaur. A report of this find was published by R. Brookes in 1763.

So, we've known about dinosaurs for only about 250 years.

Janice, unicorns aren't real. A lot like God, Allah, Jesus, Zeus, Thor, Invisible Pink Elephant, Boogeyman...

Speaking of the Bible being unscientific, what about the rainbow after Noah's flood? God puts one there to show the world he'll never be a big jerk again, like it's a new thing. However, today we all know that rainbows are created from the refraction of light. There were billions of rainbows before Noah's fictitious flood, thus the Bible is unscientific with regards to rainbows.

An animal called the re’em (Hebrew: רְאֵם‎) is mentioned in several places in the Hebrew Bible, often as a metaphor representing strength. "The allusions to the re'em as a wild, un-tamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or horns.
Unicorns are not found in Greek mythology, but rather in accounts of natural history, for Greek writers of natural history were convinced of the reality of the unicorn, which they located in India, a distant and fabulous realm for them. The earliest description is from Ctesias who described them as wild asses, fleet of foot, having a horn a cubit and a half in length and colored white, red and black
This from Wikipedia on unicorns.

Also, the bible does not say that Noah's rainbow was the first one. Only that God meant it as a sign of a covenant He was making not to destroy the earth again by flood. However,He created the light that makes it anyway in the first place.

I though God wrote the Bible. Surely He knows that unicorns don't exist.

Goodnes, some people can pick the silliest things to debate and simply come across as know it alls and IMO it simply doesn't help their cause. There is no point debating whether an animal existed in the past or not. I would HOPE that most of us know that we still aren't through discovering all the different species of creatures that have existed at one time or another in this spectacular world. We are in fact still discovering some that exist currently and just recently I read they discovered an animal believed to be extinct, but in fact still exists. So to come here and be all knowing about these things comes across as arrogant, sorry, but it does. Anyway besides that, unicorn is just one interpretation of that passage and wild ox is another. And we also have absolutely no way of knowing what some peoples of the world knew and when they knew it. Scientists are still baffled by some of the advances that some past civilizations had and some things like how they built pyramids is only one thing scientists have'nt been able to understand yet. So anyway, this is the last comment I'm making on that particular debate because sorry, it's just plain silliness and is meant as usual to make fun of Christianity. If anyone wanted to be taken seriously and be convincing they wouldn't use such sarcastic rhetoric and if you think you're not being sarastic and disrespectful, I suggest you reread your posts. Again sarcasism will not help any point you are trying to make. Enuff said, moving on.

Score:

Erik 277
CF 0

Enuff said, moving on...

I'm not back on this particular devotion to debate anyone, but felt the need to say that it's not really my place to judge anyone's sarcasm, maturity, etc. These things will speak for themselves and others are free to decide for themselves from what they read, but it's not my place to point these things out. So I will try instead to keep my comments more focused on the actual devotion for that particular day and not let myself get caught up in debating or distracting posts that don't pertain to the subject at hand. My apologies and God bless everyone.

CF - I enjoy your thoughtful and often inspiring comments on devotionals. None of us gain anything by engaging in dialog with anti-god pests buzzing in our ears.

Thank you Grant, that's very humbling to hear. I likewise really enjoy your very insightful comments as well:-)I'm afraid in moments of weakness I play into the hands of those that are just on these devotions to draw attention to themselves, no point in any of it really.

Grant, Thank you for your comment about not engaging the likes of the irritating duo who believes it is entertaining to disrupt the devotions almost daily. That is why I have quit posting and only do so every now and then. I don't care to even see their names written above the posts. I do pray for them but it is tireing to engage them. To all of the believers who post on here I pray you have a blessed day. Thank you RFTH

Jerry, Don't stop posting. Just stop taking the bait. Your straightforward responses to the devotional add a richness to the discussion. Your experiences are unique and we enjoy hearing them. None of us "has all the answers". We just share a love for Jesus and want to live our lives for him. That means upholding and encouraging one another and sharing our faith (not debating) with others. God bless.

Grant, I'm not anti-god. Okay...maybe I'm anti that Old Testament Guy, but not really anti God no.

But I have to run, and run home and take my unicorn for a walk.

I second that, Jerry. Your comments have often been something God wanted me to hear on a particular day. Each one of you is a blessing and it's almost like friends. We really get to know each other's heart and glorify the Lord and reach out to others with the truth. Each person that posts brings something to the devotion. Sleep well everyone and praise God for His bountiful goodness and love that He has for us.

Interesting sight today! A friend is visiting from out of town and we went to a nature preserve and there was a goat with one horn that looked like a unicorn. Of course it reminded me of this discussion!

It wasn't a unicorn tho, Janice. It was a goat. That's because unicorns don't exist.

Janice, you probably saw an oryx, which is an antelope with two long, thin horns projecting from its forehead.

Which is not a unicorn, which aren't real, despite the Bible waxing on about them.

Thanks Janice, isn't it awesome all the new discoveries being made constantly that were previously unknown about God's creation? Just a few days ago scientists discovered an underground river at the base of the Black Sea. It's considered the 6th largest in the world in terms of water flow and is 350 times larger than the Thames in England. Even though other underground channels have been discovered it didn't mean this one didn't exist or was a myth just because it was unknown till recently. There is no end to the the vastness and glory of everything in this universe that God created.

JCO,if you notice I was not addressing you. Personally since the Hebrew word in the bible usually is taken to mean wild ox, I think this issue is a mute point. Having said that the fact that for centuries there have been so much that was actually written about them I think there probably was at one time some type of one horned animal that they speak of. The mythology in my opinion comes in that they ever had magical powers etc. Here are some of the examples of mention of them throughout history. Genghis Khan claimed to have seen them, Alexander the Great boasted he rode one that was a gift from Queen Candace, Julius Caesar reported a sighting in the Hercynaian Forest of Southwest Germany, Herodotus in 3rd century BC wrote of a horned ass in Africa, Apollonius claimed to have seen one in India, Greek historian Ctesias in his book Indica retold stories of them and afterward Aristotle deduced it probably was an authentic animal but did not believe in the magical powers, historian Pliny wrote of them in the Cyclopaedia Historia Naturalis and concluded they existed in India, in Japan they are known as Kirin, Arabia by the name Karkadann, there is a contellation known as Monoceros the Unicorn, and doesn't the British and Canadian royal coat of arms feature a unicorn? But you know what, after having said all that I couldn't really care less if there ever was one or not. It is not what my faith is based on whether or not it was a wild ox or unicorn or what. I don't see why it's such a burr under your saddle. What difference does it make and it's sure not worth debating. The only reason I'm addressing the "unicorn" thing again is that you claim I basically ignore logic, so I'm sharing with you that logically I deduct that because basically every culture mentions them that I cannot necessarily for a "fact" discount the possibility that at some time in history that some type of animal may have existed similar to the one mentioned through the centuries. All I know for a fact is the difference accepting Christ has made my my life and that I will continue to pray for you despite your insults. I believe we have exhaused this subject and even though I know you will want the last word which I have no problem with, it is time as far as I'm concerned to put this devotion to bed and move on. I have no desire to debate you and would not have bothered to answer you if I didn't feel most people other than the regular posters have moved on to other devotions. I don't want to be a destraction to those that are here for the true purpose of these devotions. Do have a blessed night.

To JCO it's just a game. As you saw earlier, he even pretennds to keep score. You are giving him the only thing that keeps him coming back; the satisfaction of getting your attention off the "main things", and the attention he craves.