There is no such thing as "theistic evolution" in science. Scientific method doesn't have a way for accommodating the untestable ideas of the supernatural. So, if there is a "theistic evolution" it is PURE religion and nothing more. Yes, I pointed out that Biologos attacks science, in fact using ad hom. I mentioned nothing related to politics, so we agree on that.
It's clearly explained why I only latched on to the crawling-on-your-belly part. Read my explanation again. If you don't address my explanation - then, either you're being obtuse.....or you're deliberately ignoring my explanation. I said the verse indicates it did (until that time when God had put a curse on it), and modern science says it did. I didn't just make that claim from out of the blue, you know. You have your own opinion of the Bible - but unless you address the OP's argument within its context - you're wasting your time writing all that down. It's irrelevant. Your opinion doesn't change the fact that there are verses in the Bible that are supported or confirmed by modern science. This thread is giving a list of them.
You're in denial. Science does not agree with you. When you started going on about the best interest of religion, science and the USA.....that's getting into politics. This thread has nothing to do with the best interest of anything!
There is nothing in the fossil record to show the snake had a voice box capable of human speech, did it lose it with its legs?
Read again, and try to understand what you read. Where is it claimed that it used a voice box capable of human speech? Did I claim that the speech by the snake as scientifically supported? Like I've said.....the claims by the Bible being given here are only those that have been supported or confirmed by science.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beastof the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" Bit of a giveaway,"it said".
'The Bible and Science' Neither the Bible nor Science can teach us anything about God. 1). The Bible says that God is specific. 2). Science can only prove that the Bible is wrong, but it cannot prove there is no God.
Genesis 1:26-28 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. As for man having dominion over all animals - even today, we can see that for ourselves.
I surely don't claim that science can teach us about God, or that it cannot prove that there's no God. As for only proving the Bible wrong - well, that depends on your perspective. From what I see, science hasn't proven the Bible wrong. How can it prove the Bible wrong, when the Bible isn't claiming to be a science book...... .....and the Bible is using so many kinds of figures of speech! But what I can claim - with supporting verses being given in this thread - is that, modern science reaffirms, confirms or supports some of the claims in the Bible. It's like sifting the figures of speech from what are not. We find that some statements can be taken literally, or are actual descriptions.
Nope, we are in a constant battle with living things, thousands die every year because of disease spread by living things. There are creatures capable of surviving in conditions no man could endure. Even now there are places on earth man can hardly get to where there are living things.
I don't think that science tries to prove whether or not God exists anyway. It is strictly people who spin scientific findings just as much as those who spin the Bible. Both Science and the Bible are worthwhile to those who need them. One depends upon 'faith' the other on 'knowledge' ....... but only in real time.
This was a case of dueling religions for the Hebrews to turn the snake into the tempter.. Snake worship is far older and was all over Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt, Arabia and the Indus Valley.
But you are still no closer to proving there is a God. History is history. It has been proved that Paul Revere never made that famous ride, but the American settlers still defeated the British King. If Science can prove that certain passages of the Bible are geographically correct it still provides enough proof that it is wrong about God. So ...... do you believe Bible in its entirety or do you believe in God despite the inaccuracies in the Bible? You can't do both.
To do battle, isn't the same, is it? As far as I know....I'm not under any rule of anything that's not human! If you want an example as to the impact of our dominion - you should check out the environmentalist and climate-change sites!
EHH? Oly someone in denial would insist that! Or, someone who hasn't been following other threads. By the looks of it, it's atheism that doesn't have a leg to stand on! Yes, I firmly believe in both! Who sez I can't? You?
There is no logic in your argument,I am pointing that out. Not hard to look at a Snake and think it is a lizard that lost its legs, especially when you only have the knowledge man had when the bible was written. Now if you can come up with a few passages from the bible that are counter intuitive that would be interesting.
I think you know very little about scripture. Genesis is the history of the Jews and their origins. Adam is THEIR ancestor.
