This, however, started with the wrong premise, and so you have given very logical responses to, unfortunately, the incorrect hypothesis.

The Bible is not a scientific text, and therefore does not reveal scientific formulas, and especially not in modern scientific terms (how could it?). I believe you’ve taken to disproving what the Eternal Production folks claim the Bible says rather than trying to understand what the Bible is saying. The scriptures can be twisted to prove something other than what they truly mean.

I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, if it’s disheartening to see what some people will claim for Christianity, and I say that as a non-believer. The point of the exercise, however, was to look at an example of the kind of claims made by what is a significant – and growing – minority in the US and UK, and suggest what a response might look like, and nothing more. I would not pretend – and in fact say so, somewhere – that it represents mainstream Christianity.

Part of the problem with such exercises as the one I embarked upon – and there are people who spend an awful lot of their time with such rebuttals – is that they pay too much attention to minority beliefs with little to show for it.

This, however, started with the wrong premise, and so you have given very logical responses to, unfortunately, the incorrect hypothesis.

The Bible is not a scientific text, and therefore does not reveal scientific formulas, and especially not in modern scientific terms (how could it?). I believe you’ve taken to disproving what the Eternal Production folks claim the Bible says rather than trying to understand what the Bible is saying. The scriptures can be twisted to prove something other than what they truly mean.

I would not stand behind what Eternal Productions has published as saying these are scientific facts found in scriptures, nor would I agree with their 101 statements (it’s ashame to manufacture “101″ so that they have a nice, marketable number). If they are trying to convince non-believers through these “facts” then it is not a very convincing argument since you have proven my point by writing a ten-part analysis. Some of their observations are correct, but a lot are claims the Bible itself is not making.

I do stand behind what the Bible says, however, just not from a scientific textbook perspective as some folks are presenting it, or trying to prove it as such.

So, the Bible is a book about spiritual matters. While there is history and poetry and prophecy in it, the 10,000-foot view is that of framing what our relationship to God is and what His plan is for mankind. You may not believe in God, but that is irrelevant when we’re talking about what the Bible says. Just because you don’t believe in God doesn’t negate truth in the Bible. You choose not to believe it, just like I choose not to buy a certain brand of laundry detergent.

There is an excellent passage of scripture which really gets to the heart of the matter for where you are in your search. You seem adept at reading the Bible, so please begin reading Romans 1:16 through 2:16 to begin (The New Living Translation is a great read). I think this sums up where God stands in relation to your life and reflects the state of the world. The ultimate answer is in Romans 10:8 – 13. If you ask God for understanding, He will give it; because Proverbs 9:10

I pray for God to reveal His truth to you in this age as He did with me so you don’t have to spend so much time questioning and fighting what you know in your heart is true.

I urge to read [sic] more intellectual documents, possibly even by Atheists who agree the fossil record shows no signs of mutations in “kinds”. You have your point of view, which is blindly to prove you are right beyond any doubt. Even Atheists admit the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics basically destroy the foundation for evolution.

Atheists are not scientists – an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a particular concept of god, and can only rightly be called an atheist by a religious person who subscribes to a particular concept of god.

Any of your so-called “atheists” who fail to see that the laws of thermodynamics most certainly does not contradict or challenge evolution, or fails to grasp what the fossil record actually says (for example here), fails to understand basic scientific principles and findings – it’s their problem, not mine.

However, the verse cited actually says nothing about cells: so the people at Eternal Productions are making up their own Gospel, rather than a literal reading they ordinarily espouse. Moreover, the grain of seed does not actually die – if the seed “dies” it will fail to germinate; rather, it is transformed by an organic process and does not “die” as properly understood. And of course, the cell is made up of more fundamental components, and, historically speaking, cells did not need to exist before other cells could be made. In a word, the evolved.

If anything, it’s a good example of poor scientific understanding in the Bible – hardly surprising given that John, at least, was written a good 1800 years or before modern biology.

1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain.

***************************************************************
77. A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells “give their lives” to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.

The “fundamental concepts” are not actually fundamental to biology at all and arguably not “fundamental” – cells are in turn made up of things that are of interest to biologists, for example, DNA; proteins, etc. The theory of evolution certainly is fundamental – upon this entire fields within biology rest: biochemistry and genetics to name two. However, one has by now the decided impression that the good people at Eternal Productions do not like evolution…

No scientific claim has been made here, frankly.

paul you made some points which i agree with due to the fact that the publishers didnt research their points to make it water tight but you have a flaw of trying to discredit the word of God because someone didnt interpret it well enough for your idea of science to agree with it. for example when you say “…this is not science so much as deep sea exploration…” are you saying deep sea exploration is not science? pray tell, what is it? a social trip? or are you telling us Job had a means of deep sea exploration back then?

ok, talking about evolution, i like your little tap dance around the general definition of “evolution”.”…evolution does not state that one species will turn into another…” please remind me, didnt evolution tell us in a nut shell that man evolved from single-celled organisms? (read “…All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool…” from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Common_descent) taking an example of species existing today, would you say man and the paramecium are of the same ‘ancestor’ species?”…”species have evolved from ancestor species…”

on that day you will confess with your mouth and kneel in reverence to the Almighty God

But that’s the point I’ve perhaps not made very well: other people, ultimately religious people, will use the label to describe something which I do not believe in. Precisely because I do not have any religious beliefs concerning any god, I would not willingly define myself as not believing in “god”, not least because this presupposes that one actually knows what “god” is or which god, precisely. It begs the question: do you have any more labels to describe me, based on the other various things I happen not to believe in, such as Santa Claus, or unicorns?

In part, this is how “atheists” can fall into the trap of having to prove a negative: they’re often invited by a person with belief in a particular god to say why they don’t share their belief, which usually involves the “non-believer” in question to make an assumption about the god it is that they don’t believe in – surely an absurdity. It comes about because, once you have a label (”atheist”), it implies a positive statement or belief about the world, something which can be meaningfully said about the world, rather than an absence of belief or faith.

The history of atheism as a criminal activity is instructive here: the first recorded atheists were probably early Christians (Polycarp the Martyr springs to mind), because they refused to accept the official religious belief that the Roman Emperor was a god. Later, those accused of atheism – or indeed imprisoned or sentenced to death – were those who did not share the official Christian beliefs (or – famously in the case of Spinoza – official Jewish beliefs). As is often remarked, those who follow Middle Eastern religious traditions are all in fact atheists to a certain extent, because even the most devout theist will not believe in a variety of gods, even some versions of god within their own tradition. The “atheist” can only properly be said to exist in the mind of the theist.

For slightly different motives, however, we still live in a world where some people are keen to divide people with belief from those without, and so it is only with reluctance that I describe myself as an “atheist”.