Investigation of Biblical science errors

Another Clavinist, eh.

---

Reunite Gondwana!

jar
Planetary winds are south to north, not north to south as you misquoted me on saying.
Apostle

Planetary winds are neither South to North OR North to South.And that is the point.The verse you alluded to: is yet another example of errors in Biblical text. It is why the Bible cannot be taken literally.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As Levar Burton used to say, though, you don't have to take Jar's word for it...Here's a diagram of the global wind patterns for a typical month in January:And here's a more general view on a globe:These winds are the result of a Coriolis effect produced by the west to east rotation of the Earth. They spiral north and south but as you can see, the prevailing wind direction is lateral.This picture should give you an even better idea:

Kind of funny how subjects can veer of in another direction. Just to get this back on track, here is something that I have read that I find interesting. I have not researched this extensively, I was hoping many of you could verify, and or deny this information, also including the websites/books where you came to your conclusion.This message has been edited by JCPalmer, 05-29-2004 12:19 AM

This site has some good iformation for the OT: http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/index.htmlPlus there are a lot of used college textbooks out there on comparitive religion that walk through the elemnts of paganism, zorastrianism, manicheism, and greek and egyptian myth that have been incorporated into the new testament.

In the interest of keeping the thread alive I present Daniel 4:11 No tree can be high enough to be seen from all the places on a spherical Earth.And Matthew 24:29 The moon does not give off light but reflects the sunlight. You would think the son of God would be aware of this. But he moves in myterious ways right?And Mark 13:24,25 The stars shall fall wonder how that occurs at the distance of many light years?

---

What is the direction, up or down, of the acceleration of a freely bouncing ball at the bottommost point of its bounce, that is, at the instant its velocity changes from down to up?

If I step on any toes hear, I apologize in advance. Having said that, allow me to offer my humble opinion. The bible is no more a science book than a science textbook is an excercise in religious literature. If anyone thinks they can study science by utilizing the bible then they are most likely grasping at straws for graspings sake. Using this same reasoning, only an idiot would go looking for a revelation from god in a science book.Now, if you believe there is a god, then you may choose to utilize a science book as verification of the "intelligent" designers work, but you will be sorely disappointed if you attempt to utilize this same book in a search for revelation from god for a purpose to life.I will, despite the disagreement of several evolutionists here, give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that the bible does indeed offer some examples of knowledge about the universe that science is only now able to confirm and, to be sure, much of the written verbage is indeed poetic in nature, which to many people is as difficult to understand as is the purpose of a mime, other than to be an obnoxious nuisance.(side note: please don't ask me to quote any verses of the bible that have to do with science. If you don't like poetry, and you don't believe in some sort of god/creator/designer anyway, then you most likely wouldn't accept any verses offered as being scientific in nature and I won't be forced to go dig up a bible.So if you want objective science, stick to the science textbooks. If you want an occasional reference to the handiwork of god in making the universe, then stick to the bible. If you seek revelation from god, don't go looking in the scientific literature and if you seek a revelation from science, don't go looking in the bible, or any other religious piece of literature.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

DarkStar You have put forth some rather strong points here concerning science and yet. This is a forum where one is expected to back up the claims you make with evidence or arguement.You are saying here that you can indeed show us knowledge about the universe that is in the bible and is only now being studied by science.Well sorry big guy, despite it being necessary for you to dig up a bible I am afraid I must insist.Also, concerning this statement. I am sorry to say that is correct since science does not use a creator in any explanation because it cannot be tested which is a requirement of science. As to liking poetry I am sure if it actually shows us a model that fits in with current theories,without mind you, being as easily explained as being something at least as likely, then bring it on.It is not a good idea to drop bloody chunks of meat in shark infested waters while you are swimming about.Let the feast begin.This message has been edited by sidelined, 06-07-2004 10:17 PM

---

What is the direction, up or down, of the acceleration of a freely bouncing ball at the bottommost point of its bounce, that is, at the instant its velocity changes from down to up?

Keeping on topic, I shall endeavor to answer your post.Oh, by the way, you suck for making me do this.Bible says: "In the beginning.....God"Science says: "In the beginning.....Bang!"Ok, the bible and science agree there was a beginning.Bible says: "And God said light be, and light was."Science says: "The sun was not, and now is."Ok, the bible and science agree that light wasn't, and then was.I think you can see where I am going with this and it is much too late in the evening for me to go dig up a bible to give you a dozen more examples of the similarities between what the bible says and what science says. Besides, I didn't come here to defend the bible, christians, or even evolutionists for that matter.I will, however, eventually dig up a bible and offer other scriptures that are used to support the idea that science has, or eventually will, confirm much of what the bible has to say about our planet and the heavens, but understand, I have stated already that the bible is not a science book and anyone who thinks they can use it as such is fooling themselves and no one else.[sidelined: .....science does not use a creator in any explanation.....]Please see my other post concerning the definition of a presupposition. Science need not confirm nor recognize a "creator", whether that be referred to as a god, or time, or time plus chance, or whatever for it to be a necessary ingredient. "Nothin' from nothin leaves nothin'"Cheersp.s. The answer to your signature riddle, and its flaw, lies in plain view within the riddle itself.This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-14-2004 09:52 AM

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

DarkStarSorry I have not been available to respond to this as I have been busy and contracted a bout of the flu.{it even hurt to type} So God is Bang? That is awfully vague is it not? Well this is where again we do not have much information here in order to make a determination. Did you know that light was not present in the universe initially? Science operates on that which it can test and unless a test can be done to show that God exists and can be repeated anytime by anybody and receive the same results.It is because of this lack of testability that can be done by anyone,believer or not,that God exits from the realm of scientific inquiry.

---

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?

You said that, not me! Are you stating a scientifically confirmed fact, or just playing games here? 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?Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

quote:

---

But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

​

The stars shall fall wonder how that occurs at the distance of many light years?

---

Judgement day its talking about here. Surely you can believe the stars can fall if God himself comes down to destroy what he made all himself.

I have always wondered how a star would fall onto the Earth...

considering that stars are millions of times bigger the earth, technically we'd fall into one of them. this statement cannot be literally true. i mean, unless you think they're all little lights on a big sphere orbiting the earth.john probably means something like a meteor shower literally (how they would have described it at the time), and something else entirely symbolically.