Science will never find the answer because it is too limited in scope. It does not allow itself to consider all possibilities and thus will forever be destined to fail in its understanding of origins.



Religion also looked upon the Bible with fear. The Dark Ages were dark scientifically but also spiritually. Scientific advancement was preceded by religious liberty. It was one form of religion that feared losing its power that sought to control the minds of men. Now that we have come out of the Dark Ages we are free to explore the Bible and science alike. Truth need not fear investigation.

[quote]Science will never find the answer because it is too limited in scope./quote]

Depends on ones view point! Science may fail because of a lack of time, hopefully God returns soon.

Looking to the Bible for the answers is limiting also...It is not about science, but about God. That is why I do not see a conflict.

Let me state my point another way. As soon as you start saying "'he also made the stars' doesn't mean he made them then" you're already layering interpretation on what the text says to a casual lay reader. But the claim is that the 'simple' meaning of the text to a casual lay reader - not more complex, sophisticated readings by scholars and theologians - is the standard and the goal. All other such interpretations are seen as sophistry or as being inspired by science rather than God. So once again, the claim that the simplest literal reading is the correct one falls at the first hurdle, because those making that claim do not themselves accept the simplest literal reading but want to add layers of interpretation.

That is the way it appears to be, for sure. Of course I am not satisfied with a literal reading either - the Bible can and should be studied using all the historical, critical methods available, just as any other text. Not to add layers of interpretation, but to remove them and expose the underlying reality - the underlying meaning of transforming spirituality of the text.

I agree with you that the Bible needs to be studied rather than simply read.

Take, for instance, Gen. 35: 18. It says that "the soul" of Rachel "was departing." Would it be wise to take a "simple, literal" reading of the text as most people might view this text? They would tell you that it is talking about her immortal soul. There are lots of verses like this, where a "simple, literal reading" does not bring out the truth of what the text is actually saying. The Word of God is something that needs to studied, not simply read like one reads a newspaper.

Ah... that is just what some of us believe about the creation myth - ALL creation in just one week! It's not wise to take it literally either!

Actually I don't feel the age of life (on this Earth) is really important. I believe a more important question is "How old is death?"

If you believe that death only occurs on a sinful world, you ask yourself when did sin begin on this world?

If you take the viewpoint that the fossil record correctly records millions of years of life on earth then you are also stating that sin has been a factor on this world for a similar length of time. If so, where did it come from? How did it arrive here on Earth?

Similar questions would involve the factuality of the Adam and Eve story. Were they actual beings or just a story invented to explain why we see a world marred by sin. If they were not actual beings, then how did sin arrive on this world?

I guess much of this surmising depends on the question "Can you have death on a world where sin is not present?"

Graeme

PS
Bevin sidestepped this question by denying there was an actual definition of life. He dragged in the possibility of computer "life" (among other things) and so it transpired that if you could not successfully define "life" then how could you define "death". Interesting concept.

From a scientific perspective, an ecosystem with absolutely no death at all, even of plants or microbes, is incredibly difficult to imagine, in relation to the one we see around us. The Fall would have had to have astonishingly deep-rooted consequences, including massive changes to all the detailed systems of the ecosystem as well as to all the carnivorous animals.

Not saying God couldn't do it, but if he did Eden would be completely unrecognisable to us. Forget Harry Anderson's wonderful paintings... a lion completely adapted to eat grass is... a cow!

There are a number of alternatives, including that it was only human death that began at the Fall, not the death of other species. That's not to say that humans were immortal before either, but that there were no humans before that - only protohumans. Say God created the earth and life using evolution, but the creation story is about God's miracle of giving humans consciousness... and their sin in using that consciousness to disobey him?

OK, it's speculative, but it fits both the Biblical texts (under some interpretations) and the world around us in ways no other model really does.

Any model has areas in which it is *very* difficult to come up with a good explanation. Again, God *could* have created the world as it is, 6000* years ago. But if He did, why make it look older? (And it *does* look older unless you're *real* good at rationalisation.)

Life is not that hard to define... at least until you get down to the virus level.

{And I wish I didn't have to do this, but I seem to - the above theistic evolution model I described is not what I believe, it's something I'm kicking out there as speculation in response to a particular set of questions Graeme asked.}

*I know, 6-10,000 years. But that's awkward to write, and is a distinction that doesn't really make a difference so let me use 6000 as shorthand.

[quote]From a scientific perspective, an ecosystem with absolutely no death at all, even of plants or microbes, is incredibly difficult to imagine, in relation to the one we see around us. The Fall would have had to have astonishingly deep-rooted consequences, including massive changes to all the detailed systems of the ecosystem as well as to all the carnivorous animals./quote]

Our definition of 'death' is limited to what we see around us on this earth. We see a constant beginning and ending going on in the universe. So there seems to be a constant change. What we call a dying star is really a change, the matter doesn't disappear, as I understand it, but becomes a part of something else.

For me, death as we know it, is quite different from the natural process of the universe. I see it as something introduced by a change of natural laws as a consequence of mans choosing not to trust in God. No, I don't understand it, nor can I adequately explain it. Perhaps it something that God allowed, to show the results of disobeying the natural laws of life. ( a disruption in the Force)

The Bible is not a science book. According to the Bible, life is in the blood. Thus, no blood = no life.



Please provide Scripture to support this alternative.



Not according to the Bible.



If it has life, it has blood. Very easy.



Why would God use death to create life? What is the Scriptural reason to believe that?



Humans didn't come along until day six.



Some Biblical interpretations support child abuse, sexism, racism and brutal slavery. Not interpretations I want to embrace.