Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:45 pm
Remember how geocentrism used to be the accepted norm?Sailors where correct and scientists where wrong... that is why I don't believe everything scientists tell me, or everything that is in text books....
I'm not saying that science has not made mistakes in the past, that they are infallible and always correct. However, science, largely, I find, is accurate, empirical, and wonderfully explanitive. I find it as the best way to explain the workings of the universe (however, I don't hold it to necesarilly be the only way).
Like I said before: I'm an atheist with my head, but a christian with my heart.
I'm skeptical concerning most things without expressed scientific proof for it.
Actually, if you'll allow me to divirge for a moment from the exact topic at hand, I was just watching the National Geographic Channel, where they were having a special on the Moon: about how it's believed to have helped shape the Earth, promote the evolution of life on the planet, and how, even today, it can trigger volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. As I was watching it (specifically the first half, where they talked about how it shaped the Earth) I was amazed how closely what science said reflected what was written in the Bible (this is in terms of order of creation, as well as general chronology/passage-of-time).
No, I know of it's prevelance (in general terms at least). However, I find it to be a minority opinion (from just my observation and what I notice in the news) and one without any substantial basis (at least in terms of strictly "The Bible is only what it says it is" terms).you seem to think it's not that many {if I assume correctly}
For several reasons, I do not hold The Bible to be only, and wholly, what is says it is. I believe that it was originally written down as it was meant to be, through divine inspiration (but, even then, more likely than not to be open to scientific interperitation). Also, you have to realize, written perfectly though it was, it has been edited, translated and reworked through the countless generations since its first inception.
One instance of a scientific interperitation of The Bible might be very well what you mentioned already:
On the special on the Moon, for one instance, they claimed that the Moon was once fifteen times closer to The Earth than it is today (I think they said that would be around 85,000 miles away). At this point in time the gravitation that it exerted upon the Earth's surface was enough to actually alter it, shape it, and ultimately make the ground move in the same way as a tidal wave would. Eventually the distance between them grew, and the ground itself could not be affected by The Moon's gravitational pull, but the oceans could. Tidal waves grew to roughly 10,000 feet tall, due to its still incredibly close proximity to The Earth, and washed over the fledgling planet, sucking soil and rock into the sea from far inland. This change in chemical composition is what created The Primordial Soup, and from it the first strands of DNA.Bible shows God creating man from the dust of the ground, it does not say, man come from another animal.
That is where the program itself left the issue, but I venture a little further into the matter. The DNA is from the chemical imbalance caused by when the soil was added the the water. I look at this and see man coming from the dirt on the ground. The material that first made him certainly came from there, and from there punctuated equillibrium would allow for rapid evolution of man (and, keeping in mind 2 Peter 3:8, which states "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," we could infer that creation, by modern reckoning, took place over the course of 7,000 in all), which could thus explain creation in a purely scientific way.
As for the bit about the birds... what can I say: evolution works in mysterious ways.

Evolution could have come about to create birds in the proper order. Not all birds fly, as you well know, so the earliest species of them might have been flightless, who later evolved with the capacity to fly.
As for the stars bit you mentioned, might I offer that they could be referring to the stars seen from the perspective of the Earth? Because, after all, light (which can be conceived as The Sun) was made in the beginning (pardon the pun). When the original planet (I believe that it was called Theis, after the mother of Selene in mythology) plummeted into the Earth, a large body of debri was flung up into both the atmosphere and around it (clouding out the surface and also making rings around the Earth). The rings are what eventually were drawn together to form The Moon. The dust in the sky eventually cleared, which would have offered a good view into the cosmos, thus giving the planet the first view of the stars since the events which acted toward creation.
Siamese twins?And Eve was made out of part of Adam.....