The Stuff of scientism - SCIENCE vs God: The OBJECTION that is getting old...

[Grumblenuts]

historical naturalists beg the question.

Speaking of begging the question.. Is the Bible historical, the "Inspired Word of God," or just something ignorant men wrote to pacify their over zealous, easily led followers? Hell, given a clown like Trump can still inspire a bunch of idiots to break into the Capital building while in session..

 

[Ringtone]

Baloney. Science just means to study. Physics is a science. Metaphysics (a part of both physics and philosophy) is a science. Philosophy is a science. Mathematics..

Mathematics (from Greek: μάθημα, máthēma, 'knowledge, study, learning') includes the study of such topics as quantity (number theory),[1] structure (algebra),[2] space (geometry),[1] and change (mathematical analysis).[3][4][5] It has no generally accepted definition.[6][7] {...}

You, otoh, are a bonehead.

LOL! Yes, Grumblenuts, I know what the term science means. Stop being tiresomely pedantic. There's nothing you can teach about the various branches of science in terms of nomenclature. And, by the way, the term is derived from the Latin word scientia, which literally means knowledge in general irrespective of the field of study (or the branch of science). In contemporary parlance a distinction is commonly made between philosophy proper and the physical sciences, which is obviously the distinction being made by me in the above. After all, the various branches of study that fall under the banner of philosophy proper are metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, logic and ethics. The branches of philosophy are a distinctly different in natural from those of the physical sciences.

There's nothing remotely false about my post. You're a bonehead.

 

[Ringtone]

historical naturalists beg the question.

Speaking of begging the question.. Is the Bible historical, the "Inspired Word of God," or just something ignorant men wrote to pacify their over zealous, easily led followers? Hell, given a clown like Trump can still inspire a bunch of idiots to break into the Capital building while in session..

Oh, wait! That's Hollie.

Here you go. . . .

By the way is your girlfriend Hollie giving it up to you? LOL! You can tell me in a private message. I won't tell.

 

[Grumblenuts]

LOL! Yes, Grumblenuts, I know what the term science means. Stop being tiresomely pedantic. There's nothing you can teach about the various branches of science in terms of nomenclature. And, by the way, the term is derived from the Latin word scientia, which literally means knowledge in general irrespective of the field of study (or the branch of science). In contemporary parlance a distinction is commonly made between philosophy proper and the physical sciences, which is obviously the distinction being made by me in the above. After all, the various branches of study that fall under the banner of philosophy proper are metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, logic and ethics. The branches of philosophy are a distinctly different in natural from those of the physical sciences.

What was it you said again? Oh yeah,

Science's purview is limited to the phenomena of the physical world.

Backpedal much? So desperately? LOL! indeed.

It's kind of an important distinction given the topic. Check out the title^

 

[Ringtone]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

Well, yes, the Bible doesn't apply "scientific" jargon nor promote experimentation. Oddly, classes in evolution don't promote experimentation either... Anyway, the first 5 books of the OLD TESTAMENT are indeed historical. And what's a lie in the Bible is in fact exposed as a lie. And facts in the Bible are straight forwardly revealed as matter-of-fact. But frankly, everything scientists say or believe isn't entirely provable nor repeatable in all cases.

The first five books of the Bible are borrowed and adapted from much older civilizations around them .. mostly from Sumer and the North Coast Canaanites. These stories are recorded on thousands of clay tablets in Syria and Dilmun and Sumer.. and they are a thousand years older than Genesis. The stories developed differently in Judah and Israel .. until they were cobbled together around 500 BC.

So says the historical naturalist of disbelief who has never examined the biblical text in the light of the first principles of metaphysics and logic against the abject imbecility of the pagan traditions of created gods. The fact that there exists various, cultural narratives from antiquity about, essentially, the same things, doesn't tell him that the core of these various narratives is true or that the Abrahamic-Judeo narrative is uniquely true, just because it's written expression is predated by others. Never mind that Moses is the author of the written narrative of the Abrahamic-Judeo tradition, i.e., the oral narrative that predates the narratives of paganism, never mind that the biblical narrative is profoundly different in moral, ontological and theological terms relative to its benighted contemporaries. . . .

The Ugaritic tablets are so much older than Moses, if there every actually was a Moses.. Most likely he's a literary device.

This line of reasoning is, once again, the stuff of historical naturalism. Moses, who did exist, is of the 14th to 13th Century BC. And of course the oral tradition of Abraham, which Moses put down on papyrus or animal skin, goes back to, roughly, 2000 BC.

 

[Ringtone]

LOL! Yes, Grumblenuts, I know what the term science means. Stop being tiresomely pedantic. There's nothing you can teach about the various branches of science in terms of nomenclature. And, by the way, the term is derived from the Latin word scientia, which literally means knowledge in general irrespective of the field of study (or the branch of science). In contemporary parlance a distinction is commonly made between philosophy proper and the physical sciences, which is obviously the distinction being made by me in the above. After all, the various branches of study that fall under the banner of philosophy proper are metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, logic and ethics. The branches of philosophy are a distinctly different in natural from those of the physical sciences.

What was it you said again? Oh yeah,

Science's purview is limited to the phenomena of the physical world.

Backpedal much? So desperately? LOL! indeed.

It's kind of an important distinction given the topic. Check out the title^

Backpedal?! What are you talking about? What have you confounded in that little pinhead of yours this time?

 

[Hollie]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

No. Not at all, but it does entail claims that are scientific in nature.

The earth being immovable and firm is not a scientific claim. Does the earth really have a foundation?

Uh, the Bible, in this instance, is not asserting anything about an astronomically immovable planet. LOL! This expression is variously used in both the Old and New Testament to denote the fact that God created the Earth and the parameters of its existence, moreover, that he alone, not some mysterious, insufficient cause, as atheist assert, is the cause of its existence/origin, that he alone is the ground of its existence.

That’s pretty typical. Ignore what’s written in the Bible in favor of what you would like to see. So here we can see the revisionists and re-writers select those elements and passages that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are the **last** books one should use to support a reality based worldview.

I would point out that the New Testament agreeing with the Old Testament is not any reason to accept that any gods created existence. Let’s look at it another way. I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The ID creationer, in this case, you, asserts that "logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of supernatural gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my claim logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do you claim?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and to be supplanted by belief in the supernatural. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the ID creationer, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napoleon (to use the cliché)?

Yours is the typical reaction of the textually and theologically unlearned atheist who stupidly refuses to be corrected when their dunderheaded hermeneutics are falsified . . . otherwise he can no longer cling to the fallacious premises of his manifestly hackneyed literary criticisms.

Oh, look, everybody, Hollie actually believes that the metaphoric expression in the Bible regarding the creation of the world and the ontological foundation thereof actually goes to the notion of an astronomically immovable planet in spite of the fact that no one of repute, including believers of antiquity, have ever understood it to mean any such stupid thing.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Yours is the typical reaction of the hyper-religious extremist who reads his Bibles not as they are but how he wants them to be. The hyper-religious creates for himself a genuinely unsolvable dilemma. He claims there is a source material that lays out the belief system. He claims this source material has a level of functionality that supports that belief system as well. He further asserts that unless the "author" of that support system (a god or god(s)) endows one with some special knowledge (knowledge that can’t be shared in a meaningful way), one cannot understand that support system as laid out and supported by the source material.

Then the hyper-religionist will selectively pick and choose from the Bible those parts that don't offend his tender sensibilities as the book itself ranges from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and the hyper-religionist assumes the role of being the final arbiter of which parts are to be taken as literal and which are not.

Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is the flood true? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary), is the fixed and immovable, is the earth flat?

Could be. Mayhaps. Depends. Kinda. Sorta. Maybe a talking serpent maybe not, maybe condemn all of humanity for fruit theft. Why not. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains: take the parts you like and ignore the rest.

You don’t quite get that same message from the Illiad, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But plenty of people think Bibles and Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

View attachment 439603

Oh, my. You’re reduced to cowering.

 

[BreezeWood]

The sun's creation four days after the earth's creation is not scientific in nature (Gen 1:14-19).

Well, that's not entirely true. When you say not scientific in nature, what you actually mean is that this is not scientifically accurate in any literal sense.

Bear with me for a moment and think.

Once again, I never said that the Bible is a scientific text as such at all. Of course it's not; notwithstanding, it does make claims of a scientific nature, including the claim, apparently, that the Sun was created after the Earth. I say apparently because over the centuries theologians have variously rendered the Creation Hymn in terms of allegory, and, simultaneously, the perspective (or point of view) of the narrative is, mostly, that of terrestrial beings, namely, that of pre-scientific man, not entirely that of God's preeminently objective perspective outside and beyond the material realm of being. Also, and this is an aside, the Creation Hymn of the Bible claims that beyond the "firmament" God created light on the first day, which is obviously something other than the greater light that ruled the day (Sun) and the lesser "light" (Moon) that ruled the night.

Alternately wrong and right in the literal sense, the Bible does make claims of a scientific nature, howbeit, mostly from the earth-bound perspective of pre-scientific creatures. They did the best they could with their rudimentary-to-increasingly-sophisticated grasp of mathematics and a technologically unaided means of observation.

I assume that we all understand that the ancients' cosmogony was geocentric, not only that, but prior to the Third Century BC, man believed that the Earth was a flat expanse. By the way, while Hollie's biblical hermeneutics are myopic due to her penchant for hysterics in the face of anything that smacks of "God talk," she does touch on something of interest regarding the recurring juxtaposition of perspectives.

The noun phrase the foundations of the earth, the English translation from the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and its equivalent expression the foundations of the world, the English translation from the Koine Greek of the New Testament, highlights the difference in the understanding of things between the ancients and post-Hellenists. The latter knew that the Earth was spherical and that it apparently rotated, howbeit, at the center of the Universe, i.e., at the center of the concentric circles of the outer celestia bodies (Aristotelian cosmology prior to Copernicus, Brahe, and Kepler).

The noun phrase is not the immovable planet of the immovable planet. LOL! That would be redundant and nonsensical, even to the ancient Hebrews who believed that the foundations were a flat expanse in the literal sense. They understood that the ultimate thrust of the expression was metaphoric, that it ultimately pertained to a theological truth, which is readily apparent from the various contexts in which it appears. Ultimately, the foundations of the earth/world goes to God's sustaining power and knowledge, his omnipotence and omniscience. Paul elucidates the matter in his letter to the Colossians as follows:

For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together [or subsist]".​

Ruminating on the expression and its various iterations, Berkeley's observes that God is the Being "Who never looks away," meaning that God sustains the substance of the physical world in his mind.

But however interesting all of this may be to some . . . let me redirect your attention back to the topic of the OP.

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

The OP doesn't go to creation and the Bible at all. It goes to the hayneyed notion that God and science, or more accurately, that theology/philosophy and science are adversarial fields of study in some sense, ultimately, that only science is a reliable source of knowledge.

That's pseudoscientific gibberish. Initially I thought that's what you were getting at when you wrote that "Its [sic] not either or." But, perhaps, not.

Science's purview is limited to the phenomena of the physical world. We do not observe, for example, the imperatives of logic, mathematics and morality. We intuite them. The metaphysics of theology and philosophy necessarily precede and have primacy over science. In other words, science necessarily proceeds from the metaphysical presupposition that the physical world is governed by the laws of physics, that its phenomena are fixed and, therefore, predictable, rational, and that we as rational beings can decipher them and subsequently describe the physical world. Empirical phenomena do not interpret themselves. Minds do proceeding from one metaphysical presupposition or another.

A new heaven and earth were created after Israel gained independence from Babylon (Is 65:17-18). Also after Christ conquered Judea. Not new planets; new creations.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

.

Once again, I never said that the Bible is a scientific text as such at all. Of course it's not; notwithstanding, it does make claims of ...

.
notwithstanding the claim by the 4th century christian bible as representative of the historical events over the 1st century for a deliberatively fallacious messiah religion from that time is different than misinterpreted cosmological errors notwithstanding consequential results for any attendants that believed them.

and those unwilling to correct those deliberative errors as equally culpable as those that initially wrote them.

 

[Grumblenuts]

By the way is your girlfriend Hollie

The name's not Bill, but Uma is nothing to sneeze at in any case,.. nor to kick out of bed for eating crackers.

 

[Ringtone]

LOL! Yes, Grumblenuts, I know what the term science means. Stop being tiresomely pedantic. There's nothing you can teach about the various branches of science in terms of nomenclature. And, by the way, the term is derived from the Latin word scientia, which literally means knowledge in general irrespective of the field of study (or the branch of science). In contemporary parlance a distinction is commonly made between philosophy proper and the physical sciences, which is obviously the distinction being made by me in the above. After all, the various branches of study that fall under the banner of philosophy proper are metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, logic and ethics. The branches of philosophy are a distinctly different in natural from those of the physical sciences.

What was it you said again? Oh yeah,

Science's purview is limited to the phenomena of the physical world.

Backpedal much? So desperately? LOL! indeed.

It's kind of an important distinction given the topic. Check out the title^

By which I was obviously talking about the physical sciences as distinguished from those of the theological and philosophical sciences. The three major divisions of study are theology, philosophy and science (primarily the physical sciences and mathematics), although some regard mathematics as a fourth major division. That doesn't mean that any one of the three do not entail the calculi of mathematics, for example. There's no fast-hard division as such, but each of these has a distinct nature and a likewise distinct subset of studies as compared to each other. You're tiresome and dishonest, playing childish games of gotcha when you know damn that these major divisions categorically prevail in in academia in terms of common parlance, thought and nature. Of course they contingently bleed over. You think? As I pointed out earlier and then made emphatically clear in the very post you're complaining about that, after all, they are all aspects regarding the same continuous reality. What are you? A mindless semantic fundamentalist? LOL! Shut up.

 

[LittleNipper]

The earth travels a determinable path around our sun. Our moon can be charted with accuracy. This would be impossible if everything was simply random. And this is what the Bible means. But I'm sure you already knew this.

So when the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" but apparently no Sun yet else there'd be light, was the Sun then placed into a "determinable path around" the Earth such that the Earth just appears to be the Sun's - - - - - and not the other way round?

This is a very good question. Now consider for a moment what is says in the last book of the Bible in the book of Revelations regarding the NEW heaven and the NEW earth:

Revelation 22:5
King James Version
And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

I believe GOD created light and then created sources for that light. That may sound backwards. It may not be how you'd do it; however, neither of us created a Universe. I believe that it is these seeming peculiarities that a believer by faith needs to admit that GOD is GOD and the CREATOR. We don't know how or why HE choose to do what HE did according to the way HE accomplished it; however, HE in fact honestly has presented to us in HIS word what HE feels we can handle and hasn't lied to us.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So basically FAITH isn't enough. Doubling down on FAITH isn't enough either. No. To get through them Pearly Gates you're going to have to keep swallowing nonsense until you're fairly bursting your entire life while tonguing things like "HE in fact honestly has presented to us in HIS word what HE feels we can handle and hasn't lied to us".. then.. only then will you be judged worthy to get through..

Nah, I'll pass. In fact, I wish He would just punch me straight down to Hell this instant!.. Nope, nothin' again, darn it!..

 

[LittleNipper]

So basically FAITH isn't enough. Doubling down on FAITH isn't enough either. No. To get through them Pearly Gates you're going to have to keep swallowing nonsense until you're fairly bursting your entire life while tonguing things like "HE in fact honestly has presented to us in HIS word what HE feels we can handle and hasn't lied to us".. then.. only then will you be judged worthy to get through..

Nah, I'll pass. In fact, I wish He would just punch me straight down to Hell this instant!.. Nope, nothin' again, darn it!..

You call it nonsense. You who believes the entire UNIVERSE came into being by itself, that man came about by pure accident, that life spontaneously erupted on its own, that the meaning of life is just in one's imagination...

I believe that you must accept that JESUS is the MESSIAH and died for your sins. That through faith in HIM alone you are saved. However, all that is found in the Bible. Yes, there are facts that one can examine. Other ancient documents, places on a map, artifacts that archaeologists have found; however, even with all that, if you will not accept CHRIST/MESSIAH you are lost and nothing else will make for a hill of beans.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yeah, good luck with that

 

[Grumblenuts]

You who believes the entire UNIVERSE came into being by itself,

Most likely. Could be multiples. We'll probably never know for sure.

that man came about by pure accident,

No, now you're just trying to be mean. Accidents imply plans gone wrong. Evidently there was no plan. Nature just built everything from what it had at hand. Just like you and I would left stranded on an island. Feeling hungry? Taste this. Poke that. Pretty soon ya got some new "creation." No gods required. Only,.. you seek supernatural help.

that life spontaneously erupted on its own,

In a sense. But it sure wasn't and isn't instantaneous like you apparently believe. What I believe is that everything (all matter) emerges from counterspace and ultimately returns, much like current flowing from one battery pole and perhaps meandering through many complex circuits before returning though an opposite pole. In galaxies one sees matter being accreted from a spinning central disc (Pole A), forming expanding bars. Spirals of dust, stars ("light"), and planets, all of which eventually return through black holes (Pole B) also found in galactic centers. Black balls of tremendous density (mass) devoid of "light."

that the meaning of life is just in one's imagination...

To a degree, but no. We still stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. For humans, especially all those that leave us a record of some sort.. Fossils, art, music, books,..

 

[alang1216]

I don't believe in God, not because of science but because I find no convincing evidence that I should. Science is the study of the natural world while religion/God is the study of the supernatural world. Both may be true but only science provides me with the evidence I require to accept it as truth.

You putatively find no evidence for God's existence, though it be right in front of you, because you don't believe in the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic, that is, until you unwittingly do, by necessity, believe in them everytime who make any assertion whatsoever.

So what is this evidence for God's existence, that is right in front of me? I trust it is more than semantic spaghetti. Eschew obfuscation.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Razzle Dazzle Lyrics
[BILLY]
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll never catch wise!

Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle

[BILLY AND COMPANY]
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous

[BILLY]
Row after row will crow vociferous

[BILLY AND COMPANY]
Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em

[BILLY]
How can they hear the truth above the roar?

Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,

[BILLY AND COMPANY]
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!

[BILLY AND COMPANY]
Give 'em the old double whammy
Daze and dizzy 'em
Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler

Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance
Though you are stiffer than a girder
They'll let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance

[BILLY AND COMPANY]
Give 'em the old
Razzle dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em

[BILLY]
Show 'em the first rate sorceror you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you've got no talent
Razzle Dazzle 'em

[BILLY AND COMPANY]
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em

And they'll make you a star!

 

[Hollie]

So basically FAITH isn't enough. Doubling down on FAITH isn't enough either. No. To get through them Pearly Gates you're going to have to keep swallowing nonsense until you're fairly bursting your entire life while tonguing things like "HE in fact honestly has presented to us in HIS word what HE feels we can handle and hasn't lied to us".. then.. only then will you be judged worthy to get through..

Nah, I'll pass. In fact, I wish He would just punch me straight down to Hell this instant!.. Nope, nothin' again, darn it!..

You call it nonsense. You who believes the entire UNIVERSE came into being by itself, that man came about by pure accident, that life spontaneously erupted on its own, that the meaning of life is just in one's imagination...

I believe that you must accept that JESUS is the MESSIAH and died for your sins. That through faith in HIM alone you are saved. However, all that is found in the Bible. Yes, there are facts that one can examine. Other ancient documents, places on a map, artifacts that archaeologists have found; however, even with all that, if you will not accept CHRIST/MESSIAH you are lost and nothing else will make for a hill of beans.

You paint a picture of a bleak and hopeless existence.

"if you will not accept CHRIST/MESSIAH you are lost and nothing else will make for a hill of beans.''

Really? I'm lost and nothing I do or accomplish will make for a hill of beans unless I submit to Christianity? Beside being coercive, it is unreasonable. It suggests that doing unselfish acts for others means nothing. It suggests that living with honor and integrity means nothing, Such a worldview requires you to abdicate reason in the face of fear. Any gods who reward fear and submission over reason is not worthy of worship.

Ok, your testimony is that not accepting your gods means that our lives will not amount to a hill of beans. lets examine that philosophy and understand where it comes from. There is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience for them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation". The worth of Jesus' philosophy is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn very cleverly, which is actually why I find the Bible to be an interesting book. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.

The idea that "we die and all rot in the ground" somehow translates into "we shouldn't strive for excellence and happiness in life" is somewhat puzzling to me. I don't see the need to postulate an eternal afterlife or any gods in order to give life meaning. Life, in and of itself, **is** meaning. What if Atheism is a life-view that requires one to accept reality as it is, for what it is, and take responsibility for enjoying life and helping to make life better.

Why not? Because if we live in a world that we purposely make miserable, we each share in that misery. If we have children, and we love them, we want a better world so maybe they have less of a burden of pain to experience, and more pleasure and happiness.

 

[norwegen]

The sun's creation four days after the earth's creation is not scientific in nature (Gen 1:14-19).

Well, that's not entirely true. When you say not scientific in nature, what you actually mean is that this is not scientifically accurate in any literal sense.

Bear with me for a moment and think.

Once again, I never said that the Bible is a scientific text as such at all. Of course it's not; notwithstanding, it does make claims of a scientific nature, including the claim, apparently, that the Sun was created after the Earth. I say apparently because over the centuries theologians have variously rendered the Creation Hymn in terms of allegory, and, simultaneously, the perspective (or point of view) of the narrative is, mostly, that of terrestrial beings, namely, that of pre-scientific man, not entirely that of God's preeminently objective perspective outside and beyond the material realm of being. Also, and this is an aside, the Creation Hymn of the Bible claims that beyond the "firmament" God created light on the first day, which is obviously something other than the greater light that ruled the day (Sun) and the lesser "light" (Moon) that ruled the night.

Alternately wrong and right in the literal sense, the Bible does make claims of a scientific nature, howbeit, mostly from the earth-bound perspective of pre-scientific creatures. They did the best they could with their rudimentary-to-increasingly-sophisticated grasp of mathematics and a technologically unaided means of observation.

I assume that we all understand that the ancients' cosmogony was geocentric, not only that, but prior to the Third Century BC, man believed that the Earth was a flat expanse. By the way, while Hollie's biblical hermeneutics are myopic due to her penchant for hysterics in the face of anything that smacks of "God talk," she does touch on something of interest regarding the recurring juxtaposition of perspectives.

The noun phrase the foundations of the earth, the English translation from the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and its equivalent expression the foundations of the world, the English translation from the Koine Greek of the New Testament, highlights the difference in the understanding of things between the ancients and post-Hellenists. The latter knew that the Earth was spherical and that it apparently rotated, howbeit, at the center of the Universe, i.e., at the center of the concentric circles of the outer celestia bodies (Aristotelian cosmology prior to Copernicus, Brahe, and Kepler).

The noun phrase is not the immovable planet of the immovable planet. LOL! That would be redundant and nonsensical, even to the ancient Hebrews who believed that the foundations were a flat expanse in the literal sense. They understood that the ultimate thrust of the expression was metaphoric, that it ultimately pertained to a theological truth, which is readily apparent from the various contexts in which it appears. Ultimately, the foundations of the earth/world goes to God's sustaining power and knowledge, his omnipotence and omniscience. Paul elucidates the matter in his letter to the Colossians as follows:

For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together [or subsist]".​

Ruminating on the expression and its various iterations, Berkeley's observes that God is the Being "Who never looks away," meaning that God sustains the substance of the physical world in his mind.

But however interesting all of this may be to some . . . let me redirect your attention back to the topic of the OP.

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

The OP doesn't go to creation and the Bible at all. It goes to the hayneyed notion that God and science, or more accurately, that theology/philosophy and science are adversarial fields of study in some sense, ultimately, that only science is a reliable source of knowledge.

That's pseudoscientific gibberish. Initially I thought that's what you were getting at when you wrote that "Its [sic] not either or." But, perhaps, not.

Science's purview is limited to the phenomena of the physical world. We do not observe, for example, the imperatives of logic, mathematics and morality. We intuite them. The metaphysics of theology and philosophy necessarily precede and have primacy over science. In other words, science necessarily proceeds from the metaphysical presupposition that the physical world is governed by the laws of physics, that its phenomena are fixed and, therefore, predictable, rational, and that we as rational beings can decipher them and subsequently describe the physical world. Empirical phenomena do not interpret themselves. Minds do proceeding from one metaphysical presupposition or another.

The earth is not four days older than the sun; that's not "scientific in nature." Genesis is not scientific in nature.

And I did not write, "Its not either or."

A new heaven and earth were created after Israel gained independence from Babylon (Is 65:17-18). Also after Christ conquered Judea. Not new planets; new creations.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

This is what entered the minds of the Hebrews as they wrote their scriptures. Not abiogenesis, not plasma, not red shift, none of that. Heaven and earth were created with Adam, and again after Noah, and Babylon, and Assyria. And finally and permanently after Rome (or everlastingly after Rome, as the Israelites liked to say). Creation is covenant, even "in the beginning."

Christians need not rebut science to save face or explain the Scriptures in scientific terms.

 

[BreezeWood]

Nature just built everything from what it had at hand.

.
no doubt, everything in the universe is alive from the level beginning with the elements of the periodic table - to molecules - to compounds and eventually - physiology, where disparate interaction requires interconnections to function that led to the creation of a metaphysical spiritual content that made physiology into the matter as perceived today, a living organism. it is the spiritual content of physiology that began the evolution of life, not the material composition of physiology alone.

Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".

.
you should accredit such statements to the 4th century christian bible and not ridicule the 1st century religious itinerant for the purpose to correct the deliberate misinformation used for nefarious purposes and the injustice prosecuted in the 4th century and to ultimately bring justice to those that to this day have crucified an innocent victim by their own despotic scorn - ringtone. nipper.