Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Investigation of Biblical science errors
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 31 of 138 (114422)
06-11-2004 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by DarkStar
06-08-2004 1:28 AM


I will, however, eventually dig up a bible and place for your pleasure other scriptures that are used to support the idea that science will eventually confirm what the bible has said...
Okey doke. While you're at it I'd like you to explain how science will confirm that space is a metallic (or solid anyway) sphere, and that everything revolves around the earth.
It is well known that the Bible not only suggests this, but that the Xian church fought to stop heliocentric theory because it was incongruous with those writings.
And moving on from space, I have had a longstanding question that no Xian has ever adequately answered...
In a portion of the Bible which discusses marriage "laws", it states that a groom may accuse his wife of not being a virgin on their wedding night. If he is right then he gets a divorce and she gets stoned to death.
The woman proves her innocence (and remember this is the BIBLE talking) by showing bloodstains on the marriage bed's sheets. The idea being that virgins have hymens that will break on first penetration by a man.
This is an old wive's tale that has been debunked every way AND Sunday. There just is no truth to this. Women can lose their hymen without sex, and may not lose it even after several sessions of sex.
So is God, or his (holy)ghostwriters, mysogynistic or are they just clueless about women? I mean the Bible puts innocent women's lives on the line with that fairytale.
Maybe if it said men who have erections in their sleep are always dreaming of commiting adultery and so should have their balls cut off, men would start questioning more readily the scientific credibility of the Bible.
By the way, the Egyptian creation mythos scores more points of accuracy with science than the Xian mythos, right from in the beginning on down. Does that mean the Egyptian mythos is more right?
And how many errors do we allow for any creation myth, before we say it is "not scientific"?
This message has been edited by holmes, 06-11-2004 09:57 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by DarkStar, posted 06-08-2004 1:28 AM DarkStar has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 32 of 138 (114577)
06-11-2004 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by DarkStar
06-11-2004 2:55 AM


Re: Biblical Science?
DarkStar
Before we get too far gone let us be clear that this is a comparison between the Bible's version of events and the view of science concerning the way that it models the way the universe unfolded from a tiny fraction of a second after spacetime=0 to what we observe today.
The theories that allow us to make predictions of these conditions of the early universe are themselves well establshed in the sense that any predictions that are testable have been found to correct to high degrees of probability.
What initiated the big bang has not yet been worked out of course as it is dificult in the extreme to test the conditions of the early universe.What we do learn from our investigation is this.The universe was hot in the extreme due to the pressures being condensed into a tiny volume.In 1964 the remnant of this heat was discovered by two scientists when they were trying to resolve noise upon thier instrument and in the process found that it was coming from any direction they pointed their instrument.It was subsequently discovered that what they had found was the heat remnant of the universes beginning.
So all around us in space is this background radiation that gives us clues as to the conditions of the early universe.Our understanding of atomic structure and experiments with colliders allow us to understand what happens to the matter we know today when it is subject to the extreme conditions of the early universe.So as to your statement:
sidelined writes:
Did you know that light was not present in the universe initially?
Are you stating a scientifically confirmed fact, or just playing games here?
It is determined that under the initial conditions that the normal matter we see today was too hot for hydrogen atoms to form and therefore light could not be emitted since the emmision of photons of light require these atoms to be present in order for electron energy levels to change and emit photons of visible light.
sidelined writes:
Science operates on that which it can test.....
You mean like the formation of the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, the first life form, and the continued formation of all life since life first came into existance?
Yes,as in the example of the microwave background we observe what is there and make up models{theories} to explain what we observe. Our models allow us to predict what we should find if we look in a new area that we have not yet observed.If the prediction bears fruit then we have a little more confidence in the model. If not then depending on how far off the prediction is from the reality we either adjust the basic idea or we toss it in the garbage heap.
So over time we gain a greater understanding of how the pieces of the puzzle fit together.Also as time goes by we find intersections where large pieces of the puzzle fit together and we get hints from those as to the shape of the nearby pieces.
So with the general theory of relativity new understandings of gravity came into focus and we gained a huge insight into many of the workings of the universe. The fact that light can be bent by the presence of a large mass such as a star allows us to extrapolate and predict things such as gravitational lensing and the distribution of galaxies as well as the shape that they assume.We then look and find that the theories prediction are later confirmed by observation.
Of course there are gaps in our understanding of the universe and this is to be expected in something as enormous and intricate and subtle as the universe is proving itself to be.The beauty of it is that in investigating we find that the universe exceeds our expectations in that every answer we recieve to a penetrating question unfolds a whole new series of questions that we did not imagine were even there.
Anyway the fact of the matter is that the bible supposedly offers scientific based information that upon examination proves to be worthless or so stretched by tricks of language as to be vague beyond repair. I will await further examples if you have them to present.

You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by DarkStar, posted 06-11-2004 2:55 AM DarkStar has not replied

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 33 of 138 (114711)
06-12-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
12-04-2003 11:26 PM


Way ahead?
Here are a few Bible statements that have been confirmed by science:
"He hangs the earth upon nothing" Job 26:7
This scientific fact is from Job, the Bible's oldest book.
"He....sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22
The Bible said the earth is round centuries before man 'discovered' it.
"To make the weight for the winds." Job 28:25
Long before scientists knew, the Bible said air has weight.
"By him (Christ) all things consist." Colossians 1:17
The word 'consist' here literally means 'hold together'. This is the answer to the nuclear physicist's worrisome question about the atom. The real mystery of the atom does not involve its benumbing mega-power, but rather "why does the atom not fly apart?" Scientific knowledge says it should, but it does not. Some scientists are wondering what puzzling power, completely unknown to them, is holding it together.
Enjoy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 12-04-2003 11:26 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 06-12-2004 5:38 PM PecosGeorge has not replied
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 06-12-2004 7:08 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 138 (114714)
06-12-2004 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by PecosGeorge
06-12-2004 5:28 PM


Crap
"He hangs the earth upon nothing" Job 26:7
shows nothing. It is the same non-statement you can find in any myth. That is not a scientific statement.
"He....sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22
Circle, not sphere. You got nothing there.
"To make the weight for the winds." Job 28:25
Nonsense. Anyone who has ever felt a breeze couold say the same.
PG, you have nothing.
The Bible is not a science textbook.
finally
The real mystery of the atom does not involve its benumbing mega-power, but rather "why does the atom not fly apart?" Scientific knowledge says it should, but it does not. Some scientists are wondering what puzzling power, completely unknown to them, is holding it together.
Again, pure nonsense. Of course folk know what holds the atom together. Please take time to look at the four forces.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by PecosGeorge, posted 06-12-2004 5:28 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 35 of 138 (114728)
06-12-2004 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by PecosGeorge
06-12-2004 5:28 PM


Re: Way ahead?
PecosGeorge
"He hangs the earth upon nothing" Job 26:7
This scientific fact is from Job, the Bible's oldest book
This contains no information about reality at all.Now if the statement had read that the earth is placed within a gravity well of the sun or even within the hand of God to guide it through the sky then we might have something.That would never occur of course since the earth in those days was considered to be motionless and all things move about it.
He....sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22
The Bible said the earth is round centuries before man 'discovered' it.
They had a concept of ball which as a seperate word that presents the concept of a circle as well as a sphere. So if that word had been substituted,as it is also used in the book of Isaiah,then we would have a weak arguement but at least it would be something.
"To make the weight for the winds." Job 28:25
Long before scientists knew, the Bible said air has weight
Well since in wind the effect felt has to do with the mass of the air in motion and not the weight which is what you feel when the air is motionless then it has no real science value.
"By him (Christ) all things consist." Colossians 1:17
This is a huge stretch and again it is wrong since the initial mystery of the atom early on was how come a positively charged nucleus did not attract{nor repel or'fly apart' as you put it} the negatively charged electrons about it.Opposites attract remember?
Anything more out there?

You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by PecosGeorge, posted 06-12-2004 5:28 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 138 (114764)
06-13-2004 1:18 AM


Exactly as I predicted!
Some of these latest posts in this thread have proven my earlier point that nothing in the bible that is shown to a determined non-believer will ever be able to convince them that there are indeed references to scientific realities that science has only recently uncovered and found to be true. The reason for this, as I have always stated, is that they have purposefully become entrenched, and willfully predisposed themselves with the idea that the bible can not possibly contain any kind of reference to scientific realities that are now, or may someday be, confirmed by science. It does not matter what they are shown, as they have already pre-manufactored in their unbelieving mind an excuse for not accepting anything that is presented to them, regardless of the obvious references, which are clearly visible to the well educated, open-minded individual.
They keep their mind closed at all times, and at all costs, to the possibility of any valid statements in the bible when it comes to science. These same individuals will claim that they are not so disposed, and that if they are shown any real evidence of biblical accuracy concerning science, that they will willingly accept such evidence but the reality is that they never will, they never can, due to their pertinacious attitude, coupled with their aversion to the possibility of the bible being true. I have always, and shall always, approach every aspect of life with my mind opened to new possibilities. That it why I can easily validate the biblical references to scientific realities, without automatically having to validate any religious belief in and of itself.
Cheers
This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-14-2004 09:29 AM

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 06-13-2004 2:19 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 38 by sidelined, posted 06-13-2004 6:28 AM DarkStar has replied
 Message 40 by PecosGeorge, posted 06-13-2004 8:59 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 06-13-2004 9:02 AM DarkStar has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 138 (114774)
06-13-2004 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by DarkStar
06-13-2004 1:18 AM


Nobody's saying there can't be science in the Bible.
The Bible writers weren't idiots. But they weren't precient, either. There's nothing in the Bible that the Bible writers couldn't have figured out the same way we did, millenia later - good ol' observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by DarkStar, posted 06-13-2004 1:18 AM DarkStar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 06-14-2004 8:25 AM crashfrog has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 38 of 138 (114799)
06-13-2004 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by DarkStar
06-13-2004 1:18 AM


Re: Exactly as I predicted!
DarkStar
The latest posts in this thread have proven my earlier point that nothing in the bible that is shown to a determined non-believer will ever be able to convince them that there are indeed references to scientific realities that science has only recently uncovered and found to be true. The reason for this, as I have always stated, is that they have purposefully become entrenched, and willfully predisposed themselves with the idea that the bible can not possibly contain any kind of reference to scientific realities that are now, or may someday be, confirmed by science.
We are not predisposed DarkStar but neither are we awed by references that are in no way scientific.No one here has given even a remotely plausible example of how the bible has any scientific value whatsoever.We have pointed out time and again that they are in fact in error.
We haven't even touched on how minimal the references are to actual scientific investigation.You,however,take a phrase from the bible and apply your own misunderstanding of science and then claim that we are in some brainwashed state and incapable of seeing your "proofs". The bible is not at fault old man but you and your poor knowledge of the correlations between the passages and actual scientific understanding are.
You also cannot distinguish between entrenchment and solid foundational standardization of the structure of the sciences that have been built up through rigorous application of thinking by literaly millions of people over centuries.
They keep their mind closed at all times, and at all costs, to the possibility of any valid statements in the bible when it comes to science.
We are not closed minded but neither are we gullible. As has been pointed out you have yet to present a valid arguement that actually is on the mark.We haven't even begun to apply the same level of demands upon your 'evidence' as science is subjected to constantly.
As for closed mindedness do you think nobody noticed the close mindedness apparent in the subtitle you submitted?
Exactly as I predicted!
You came out guns blazing assuming that what you had thought was happening actually did. Again you are simply wrong.When you can argue the failings of your supposed science in the bible as we have pointed out instead of getting defensive then perhaps someone can learn what it is you are trying to get at.Until you can and do please don't try to wriggle out of having to think for a change instead of throwing out claims that you are not showing the backbone necessary to defend them.
Perhaps you might surprise yourself with actually seeing that science requires embracing doubt and not faith.
This message has been edited by sidelined, 06-13-2004 05:46 AM

You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by DarkStar, posted 06-13-2004 1:18 AM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by custard, posted 06-13-2004 6:48 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 42 by PecosGeorge, posted 06-13-2004 9:07 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 53 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 2:10 PM sidelined has replied

custard
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 138 (114802)
06-13-2004 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by sidelined
06-13-2004 6:28 AM


Re: Exactly as I predicted!
You,however,take a phrase from the bible and apply your own misunderstanding of science and then claim that we are in some brainwashed state and incapable of seeing your "proofs".
This argument of 'the bible is true because it has SCIENCE in it that no one knew about at the time it was written!' is truly laughable. This can be applied to ANY mythology.
For instance, today I read an Iroquois creation myth, which, when properly interpreted, PROVES the Iroquois knew about continental drift before it was discovered by Western science.
quote:
The daughter of the Sky Chief is pushed down through a hole in the sky into a world that is covered with water, but she is saved from drowning by water fowls, who convice the great turtle below to harbor her. Toad dives for mud and makes the earth on the back of the turtle.
  —American Indian Myths and Legends
- American Indian Myths and Legends, Erdoes & Ortiz,1984
If that doesn't refer to continental drift and plate tectonics, I don't know what does. Obviously this story was divinely inspired (well, I suppose that goes without saying since it refers to the big Sky Chief) and therefore true.
This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 05:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by sidelined, posted 06-13-2004 6:28 AM sidelined has not replied

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 40 of 138 (114809)
06-13-2004 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by DarkStar
06-13-2004 1:18 AM


Why
Dark Star? You are certainly a fine light in my direction.
Thank you for your passion. It is as you say. And those self-same people wonder why one does not engage in discussion with them.
If no science, how about some history:
Four world empires to arise
Babylon
Medo-Persia
Greece
and Rome
Daniel chapters 2, 7, and 8
Cyrus to be the warrior to capture Babylon
Isaiah 45:1-3
Egypt would never again have a commanding position among the nations
Ezekiel 29:14, 15; 30:12, 13 and etcetera
Good guesses, Star? I wonder how the unbeliever will get past it, and he will.
As for the stars falling, Star? My wish is that you would catch a falling star and put it in your pocket.
Thanks again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by DarkStar, posted 06-13-2004 1:18 AM DarkStar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Unseul, posted 06-13-2004 12:12 PM PecosGeorge has not replied
 Message 46 by jar, posted 06-13-2004 12:34 PM PecosGeorge has not replied
 Message 47 by sidelined, posted 06-13-2004 12:50 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 41 of 138 (114810)
06-13-2004 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by DarkStar
06-13-2004 1:18 AM


Re: Exactly as I predicted!
The latest posts in this thread have proven my earlier point...
I want you to explain how my post did this. I have not claimed that there are no statements within the bible regarding the universe which science eventually came to regard as similar (or if you want to make it stronger... true).
My post was about the scientific ERRORS contained in the Bible for which there is absolutely NO HOPE that it will be discovered to be true by science.
Its description of the nature of the univers around the earth was patently false. Okay, so someone could argue that was humans misinterpreting the poetic imagery of God and so it is not incorrect. Fine.
But one cannot get around that hymen problem. It is there in black and white, and red for all the poor innocent women stoned to death, and it is completely wrong. There is no "poetics" excuse... nada.
With such errors in the Bible the question becomes how many are necessary to question whether writers happened to get some things right (just as some ancient Greeks did with no instrumentation for knowing what they did) and sometimes they didn't know what they were talking about?
I went on to suggest that your argument actually seems to provide more support for other ancient religions which had better (or more similarities to science with their) creation myths. How should we judge them then?
I predict a continued nonanswer from you, Darkstar. Prove me wrong.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by DarkStar, posted 06-13-2004 1:18 AM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by DarkStar, posted 06-13-2004 10:55 PM Silent H has replied

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 42 of 138 (114812)
06-13-2004 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by sidelined
06-13-2004 6:28 AM


Re: Exactly as I predicted!
Sciene requires much faith.
Faith that the equation will work, so you can build on it.
It requires 100% faith that what you think will happen, does happen, that you have not overlooked something,(faith in yourself), that you can count on the qualities of the substance you work with.
Not really, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by sidelined, posted 06-13-2004 6:28 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 06-13-2004 11:19 AM PecosGeorge has not replied
 Message 44 by sidelined, posted 06-13-2004 12:09 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 43 of 138 (114832)
06-13-2004 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by PecosGeorge
06-13-2004 9:07 AM


Crap
Sciene[SIC] requires much faith.
Simply wrong. In fact, Science is based on questioning and not on faith.
It requires 100% faith that what you think will happen, does happen, that you have not overlooked something,(faith in yourself), that you can count on the qualities of the substance you work with.
Again, simply wrong. That is why one of the basic requirements of Science is repeatability. Any new discovery is considered tenative until and unless it can be independantly tested. that is why so much effort goes into checking the qualities of the substance you work with, and for accounting for things like impurities, specifications and quality.
Finally, your statement that...
It requires 100% faith that what you think will happen, does happen,...
is simply crap.
Advance comes from the unexpected. The whole history of science is one of overturning what everyone knew was right.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by PecosGeorge, posted 06-13-2004 9:07 AM PecosGeorge has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 44 of 138 (114834)
06-13-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by PecosGeorge
06-13-2004 9:07 AM


Re: Exactly as I predicted!
PecosGeorge
It requires 100% faith that what you think will happen, does happen, that you have not overlooked something,(faith in yourself), that you can count on the qualities of the substance you work with.
What you are describing here might be a scientists ego but not science itself old boy.
Faith that the equation will work, so you can build on it
What pure rubbish. The math either describes the phenomena or it does not.Neither faith nor wishful thinking nor prayer nor sacrifice will make it otherwise.Hell man,did you switch off the thinking part of your brain for that or did your own ignorance override your common sense?

You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by PecosGeorge, posted 06-13-2004 9:07 AM PecosGeorge has not replied

Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 138 (114835)
06-13-2004 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by PecosGeorge
06-13-2004 8:59 AM


Re: Why
Erm, the bible was actually written down a coupla hundred years AD wasnt it? I mean i cant be positive on this one, but im sure this was when it was actually written (i know word of mouth traveled for longer than this etc)
Babylonian empire 550 BC (So its already been and gone, not exactly a prediction)
Persian empire 550-330 BC (Same as the last one)
Greek empire 500-300 BC (need i say "ditto")
Roman empire 27 bc - debatable to actually end, we'll use 476 AD (Romulus Augustus) (Well this one was sorta happening at the time, a bit better, but not what id class as a prediction.
Now then, lets try some more, how about it mentioning the British empire, because that would have been after the bible for sure, but unfortunatly no luck. Now it definitly compares size for size with the others im sure, the old saying "the sun never sets on the British empire." wasnt just a saying it was the truth.
Heres the unbeliever getting past, even if you dispute the date of the bible being written its still missed one of the world empires out.
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
Do unto others before they do unto you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by PecosGeorge, posted 06-13-2004 8:59 AM PecosGeorge has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024