EvC Forum: Investigation of Biblical science errors

DarkStar

As for the references I supplied in Re: Biblical Science? (Message 25), they were fully defended.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 showed a direct correlation between what the bible says and what science says and that they were in complete agreement on those issues. I fully supported my references, something you seem incapable of doing.

That is not the point sir. I replied to your post above thusly.

DarkStar
Sorry 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}

Bible says: "In the beginning.....God"
Science says: "In the beginning.....Bang!"

So God is Bang? That is awfully vague is it not?

Bible says: "And God said light be, and light was."
Science says: "The sun was not, and now is."

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 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

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 replied

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sidelined writes:
So God is Bang? That is awfully vague is it not?

You said that, not me!

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?

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?

Cheers

My response was

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.

I did not recieve any rebuttal from you directly to this. However you played this card in post #36.

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

My response

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Then we have you play this one. You still have not provided a rebuttal to my post at this point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sidelined writes:
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.

I am of the belief that you are indeed predisposed, and the above statement seems to confirm that belief. I find it difficult to fathom the idea that you have not been exposed to a plethora of examples of scientific references in the bible and yet you hold firm to the notion that the bible cannot have "any scientific value whatsoever" because "no one here has given even a remotely plausible example".

sidelined writes:
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.

Such statements as you offered in your post positively reveal the accuracy of my point, which for purposes of clarification, will be posted here with those accurate references pointed out.

DarkStar writes:
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.

Now if the bible is true, and I most surely am not stating here that it is, it would be a most interesting thing to have a conversation with the late Dr. Carl Sagan who said;

"You have to know the past to understand the present."

and.....

"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries." Cosmos p.333

and.....

Quotes From A Pale Blue Dot.....

"It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

"But for us, it's different. Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."

"Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves."

Carl Sagan 1934-1996
I have spent countless hours being fascinated by Dr. Carl Sagan. He is sorely missed.

Cheers

Then my response.

DarkStar
I find it difficult to fathom the idea that you have not been exposed to a plethora of examples of scientific references in the bible

LOL where do you get that idea? I have had many examples given me over the years and none of them held up under scrutiny and in fact were not always wrong in their statements but the excerpts used were twisted into gibberish or they were claimed to demonstrate things that were not even remotely related or the person making the claim was in error of the actual scientific understanding.

Perhaps you have one you could show that we could debate upon?

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.

Again,sir, I am not pre-disposed.Instead of attacking character traits you have no evidence for how about presenting an actual science fact from the bible that you are aware of and defend your position.

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

You make a bold statement sir would you care to show us an example and back it up with a bible excerpt that is scientifically accurate or willy ou merely leave it to be a statement of opinion.? After all it is easy to be brave from a distance.LOL

I am aware of Carl Sagan and since I have always been smitten by the night sky so I too felt loss with the passing of Sagan.He also had a wonderful sense of the need to apply sceptism and in the book The Demon Haunted World {subtitle: science as a candle in the dark} he introduced a Bullshit detector.It goes as follows.

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

The second one
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view

Is what I propose we do.Will you give us your example and back it up?

Then for whatever reason you get a burr deep up your ass and get all testy here.

Re: Perhaps you can start with those refernced in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jar writes:
these posts.
Message 1 (Thread Investigation of Biblical science errors in Forum Is It Science?)

I saw two incomplete references. No reference point was given for either of them. Please supply those for me. Thanks.

jar writes:
Message 13 (Thread Investigation of Biblical science errors in Forum Is It Science?)

Well I don't read the bible much but even I was able to see the error in your interpretation. Lateral air flow continually causes winds to blow both north and south. Perhaps you should have waited for crashfrog's illustrations in Message 19 which clearly confirm the referenced passage in the bible.

jar writes:
Message 22 (Thread Investigation of Biblical science errors in Forum Is It Science?)

Did you even bother to check these out for yourself? No, obviously not. You expect me to do so when it is quite obvious that you did not do so yourself or you would not have even considered them. I think Sidelined is either jerking your chain or he never bothered to check them out either. "Daniel 4:11" is about a dream daniel was told, and in reference to "Matthew 24:29", Sidelined errs in his thinking again. The moon does indeed give off light. It may be a reflected light but it is light nevertheless. And as for "Mark 13:24,25", this is obviously speaking about asteroids. Did you or Sidelined even bother to check out the Greek? Obviously not or you would have known this already.

jar writes:
Message 31 (Thread Investigation of Biblical science errors in Forum Is It Science?)

Another meaningless post. Holmes too neglected to supply reference points, and I have already reponded to him in Re: Exactly as I predicted! (Message 51), asking him to supply the reference material for his statement.

Holmes writes:
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.

I believe this was originally posted in Message 31 and as yet I have noticed no offering by him of that material. Regarding the hymen issue, this is hardly a scientific reference. Let Holmes give me the biblical reference where this practice was commanded by their god and I will reconsider this issue. Holmes made several assertions in his post, not one of which contained any sort of reference point other than the generic "remember this is the bible talking" mantra.

I suggest that the three of you forget about expecting me to look up any more biblical scientific references for you because it is quite obvious that none of you was willing to perform even the slightest bit of investigative research, which you fully expected me to do, and when I complied I find out that you three, and most likely crashfrog as well, would rather waste peoples time then do your homework. Do not attempt to waste my time again. You will be ignored!

Jeers

ANd now we arrive at you with your chest all puffed out trying to strut insted of answering the challenge that I presented way back in post # 32

I have defended my references but you have time and again REFUSED to answer so fine do not but don't you bloody dare say that I have not .

CHeers!

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?

4 online now:	dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, Tanypteryx
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 0/2