Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific errors in the Bible
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 16 of 163 (12920)
07-06-2002 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jonathan
07-05-2002 6:27 PM


Simply saying "divine intervention" rather than offering a coherent explanation of something is one of the reasons Creationism is not science. Back in the Dark Ages it was OK to answer any question you wanted with "divine intervention" and we know how people lived back then. Fortunately science eventually got the upper hand and we now have indoor plumbing. The small price to pay is that we can't answer questions with "divine intervention" and still be talking about "science" anymore.
Besides your response raises other questions. Why did God spare a bunch of bristlecone pines in the Southwest and not the rest of the Earth's vegetation? What purpose would it serve?
Why are you making the assumption that He did make an exception for them while dooming the rest of the vegetation, when the logical explanation is that there was no Flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jonathan, posted 07-05-2002 6:27 PM Jonathan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jonathan, posted 07-07-2002 6:10 PM gene90 has replied

  
Jonathan
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 163 (12973)
07-07-2002 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by gene90
07-06-2002 4:56 PM


The thing is is that the whole basis for creationism is based on "devine intervention" not science. If we were created by God then none of what he did agrees with modern-day scientific logic. A God could not create an earth and populate it by adhering to our scientific principals, its an absolute impossibility.
That is the whole basis for the evolution vs creationism arguement. Evolution relies on sciencentific evidence and creationism relies on more than that evidence. I believe that there is more going on than we can explain with men in lab coats.
Oh by the way. You're right, I am so thankful that science took the upper hand, we may never have had indoor plumbing.
Thank you science!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by gene90, posted 07-06-2002 4:56 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 10:36 AM Jonathan has not replied
 Message 19 by gene90, posted 07-08-2002 11:33 AM Jonathan has replied
 Message 24 by JJboy, posted 08-31-2002 1:52 AM Jonathan has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 18 of 163 (13056)
07-08-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jonathan
07-07-2002 6:10 PM


I thought that the whole basis for the argument was that
some creationists think that evolution is undermining
their belief system ... and that most scientists are apalled
that a supposedly civilised, advanced nation would allow
mythology to be taught in the science class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jonathan, posted 07-07-2002 6:10 PM Jonathan has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 19 of 163 (13062)
07-08-2002 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jonathan
07-07-2002 6:10 PM


[QUOTE][b]The thing is is that the whole basis for creationism is based on "devine intervention" not science.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I agree on that.
[QUOTE][b]If we were created by God then none of what he did agrees with modern-day scientific logic.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Scientific logic reveals the way the world works today. Now if we believe in divine creation then necessarily we believe that the way the world works today is because it follows the laws of physics placed by God. I don't understand why God would have to break or suspend his own laws to get something done. Hence, I think that the best explanations are the ones that are naturalistic (scientific) ones.
[QUOTE][b]A God could not create an earth and populate it by adhering to our scientific principals, its an absolute impossibility. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Now, you may be correct--there isn't a way for me to know. But I would not be so quick to limit God. In fact, God could even have made the Earth fifteen minutes ago and given us all memories to create the illusion of age and continuity. Such a position cannot be disproven, though it does have a weakness of *why* such a thing would be done. My point is that when we are dealing with the supernatural, science and even common sense are useless because nothing is an impossibility. (Notice that in the last paragraph I had to resort to an argument of *why* rather than a scientific one based upon evidence.)
[QUOTE][b]I believe that there is more going on than we can explain with men in lab coats.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
That is quite possible. Some of us even believe on faith that there is. But if there is it is outside the realm of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jonathan, posted 07-07-2002 6:10 PM Jonathan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jonathan, posted 07-08-2002 3:13 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Jonathan
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 163 (13072)
07-08-2002 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by gene90
07-08-2002 11:33 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][b]I believe that there is more going on than we can explain with men in lab coats.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
That is quite possible. Some of us even believe on faith that there is. But if there is it is outside the realm of science. [/B][/QUOTE]
For example:
http://www.oberf.org
[This message has been edited by Jonathan, 07-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by gene90, posted 07-08-2002 11:33 AM gene90 has not replied

  
wesmac
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 163 (15721)
08-19-2002 9:18 PM


About your claim that the Bible contains scientific errors...specifically the part where you claim that it says insects have four legs. I'm glad to see that a believer of evolution is reading the Bible but you need a lesson in understanding transitional thoughts. That verse does not say that insects have four legs. God gave man permission to eat of four legged creatures and then in the "next thought" gave them permission to eat locusts. If that's the best you've got then your argument is weak.
Tell me how old testament scripture says that God "hangeth the world upon nothing"? This was not the accepted (or even suggested)scientific or religious view of the world at that time.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 4:27 PM wesmac has not replied
 Message 39 by doctrbill, posted 10-25-2002 1:06 AM wesmac has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 22 of 163 (15860)
08-21-2002 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by wesmac
08-19-2002 9:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wesmac:
About your claim that the Bible contains scientific errors...specifically the part where you claim that it says insects have four legs. I'm glad to see that a believer of evolution is reading the Bible but you need a lesson in understanding transitional thoughts. That verse does not say that insects have four legs. God gave man permission to eat of four legged creatures and then in the "next thought" gave them permission to eat locusts. If that's the best you've got then your argument is weak.
Tell me how old testament scripture says that God "hangeth the world upon nothing"? This was not the accepted (or even suggested)scientific or religious view of the world at that time.

Let’s see what Leviticus actually says in the creationists favorite the KJV:
11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Sure sounds to me like it’s talking about four legged insects. Just what are those flying creeping things with four feet you can eat and those other flying creeping things which have four feet that are abomination to you? Your statement above makes me wonder if you have ever read these passages yourself. BTW locusts are grasshoppers, they are not different "kinds".
The old testament also says the following:
1 Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Psalm 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.
Psalm 96:10: Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously....
Psalm 104:5: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Are you a geocentrist? Do you believe that the earth is fixed and immovable?
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by wesmac, posted 08-19-2002 9:18 PM wesmac has not replied

  
JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 163 (16320)
08-31-2002 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Arachnophile
05-07-2002 7:27 AM


Hey! Boy, you guys sure can have a long post without being answered! Well, I'll try and take a shot at it.
The writer of Leviticus has never seen an insect, I suppose. I think that it would have been comman enough knowledge, even then, that grasshoppers had six legs. I believe it is just a figure of speach.
The hare does, in layman's term, eat it's cud. It has, as I am sure you know, two pellets. One is hard, and is waste. The other is soft, and the Rabbit eats them again, like cud.
Cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Arachnophile, posted 05-07-2002 7:27 AM The Arachnophile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Randy, posted 09-03-2002 12:53 PM JJboy has not replied
 Message 36 by The Arachnophile, posted 10-24-2002 11:02 AM JJboy has not replied
 Message 37 by Mister Pamboli, posted 10-24-2002 8:27 PM JJboy has not replied

  
JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 163 (16332)
08-31-2002 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jonathan
07-07-2002 6:10 PM


You are absolutely correct. Creation is not based on science. It is based on the Genesis account, which we believe is supported by scientific evidence. Also, if God created the universe, he also created the scientific laws. Since the he created them, and is obviously greater than they, is he expected to be bound by them? The cause is always greater than the effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jonathan, posted 07-07-2002 6:10 PM Jonathan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by John, posted 08-31-2002 2:08 AM JJboy has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 163 (16336)
08-31-2002 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by JJboy
08-31-2002 1:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by JJboy:
It is based on the Genesis account, which we believe is supported by scientific evidence.
And do you have some of this evidence?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by JJboy, posted 08-31-2002 1:52 AM JJboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by JJboy, posted 09-01-2002 2:12 AM John has replied

  
JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 163 (16357)
09-01-2002 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by John
08-31-2002 2:08 AM


Sure. Check out my new post in the Evolution section titled "The Big one."
------------------
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
------------------------
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.
-Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John, posted 08-31-2002 2:08 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by R. Planet, posted 09-01-2002 6:59 AM JJboy has replied
 Message 28 by John, posted 09-01-2002 9:17 AM JJboy has not replied

  
R. Planet
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 163 (16367)
09-01-2002 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by JJboy
09-01-2002 2:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by JJboy:
Sure. Check out my new post in the Evolution section titled "The Big one."

Sorry JJboy, but all you did in The Big One post was assert the first cause argument. That argument has nothing to do with whether Genesis is a scientific account of how the universe came into being. As an example: The big bang could be how your god created the universe. Or it could be some other God, or a multitude of gods conspired to cause the universe to exist.All you really did in that post was attempt to ‘prove’ the existence of a supernatural being. Evidence for the Genesis account simply doesn’t enter into it.
BTW, you have misquoted Einstein. The word ‘he’ isn’t in the original.
------------------
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-Albert Einstei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by JJboy, posted 09-01-2002 2:12 AM JJboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by JJboy, posted 09-03-2002 7:33 PM R. Planet has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 163 (16372)
09-01-2002 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by JJboy
09-01-2002 2:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by JJboy:
Sure. Check out my new post in the Evolution section titled "The Big one."

That isn't really evidence of the Genesis account.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by JJboy, posted 09-01-2002 2:12 AM JJboy has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 29 of 163 (16500)
09-03-2002 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by JJboy
08-31-2002 1:00 AM


From JJBoy
quote:
The writer of Leviticus has never seen an insect, I suppose. I think that it would have been comman enough knowledge, even then, that grasshoppers had six legs. I believe it is just a figure of speach.
The writer of Leviticus was supposed to be Moses and Moses was supposedly writing down those things that God spoke to Moses saying
Do you think God had never seen an insect? Wasn’t one of the those plagues that affected Egypt when Moses was there locusts? You’d think Moses would have seen one or two. Or maybe it was not written by Moses and was written as you say by someone who had never seen an insect and that is why it this error.
quote:
The hare does, in layman's term, eat it's cud. It has, as I am sure you know, two pellets. One is hard, and is waste. The other is soft, and the Rabbit eats them again, like cud.
Sorry eating feces is NOT chewing cud even if they are soft feces, no matter what the apologists say. I have seen those clever twisting apologetics that try to explain this blunder away. It seems to me that if the Bible really was the revealed word of God in every particular, it would not require all these complex apologetics, some of which make very little sense.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by JJboy, posted 08-31-2002 1:00 AM JJboy has not replied

  
JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 163 (16511)
09-03-2002 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by R. Planet
09-01-2002 6:59 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by R. Planet:
[/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry JJboy, but all you did in The Big One post was assert the first cause argument. That argument has nothing to do with whether Genesis is a scientific account of how the universe came into being.
[/QUOTE]
You are right in saying that Genesis was not a scientific account of how the Universe came into being. In fact, it defies all scientific laws. Energy was created from nothing, and it's a well known fact that energy cannot be vreated or destroyed. But the scientific evidence supports a Genesis account. Yes, I admit, it is hard to find one peice of evidence that we can clearly say, 'Oh, well here is a proof that God made the Universe.' There is no way that we can do that. All we can see today is today. we can see fossils and so on, and hypothosize about it all we want, but we cannot know. But there is no evidence that clearly contradicts the Genesis account. But I will look into it further, and maybe later I can back with a 'proof'
Evolution faces the same problem, that is, the lack of concrete evidence. There is, however evidence that we see today that contradict what Evolution says would be. Actually, maybe not what Evolution says, but what would be if Evolution was correct. Here are two examples of what I am talking about:
World Population.
The world’s population hovers near six billion. Currently a big ‘scare’ is the fear of over-population. A population of six billion is certainly a mind-boggling number, but we are nowhere near devastating the world’s resources. What, if any, difference would we see in the population of the Earth if Evolution’s theory were correct? Consider that the Human race, or Homo sapiens, has allegedly been in the evolutionary picture for approximately one million years. If the average generation lasted forty years, then there would have been 25,000 generations from the period man appeared to the present time. Today’s annual growth rate averages 2%. If we make the annual growth rate %, the current population would be an incredible 10 followed by 2100 0’s following it. This is a huge number, and, thankfully, we do not see this population today. Imagine the immense numbers of graves we would see around us! Obviously, life would perish on earth before we could reach such an enormous population. As seen by the current population, we can see that Man has not existed for as many years as evolutionary scientists would have us believe.
The size of the Sun.
The Sun is a life giver. Without it, life could not exist on the planet Earth. But in the evolutionary timeframe, the sun would have prohibited life on earth, and the formation of all the other planets.
The diameter of the sun is currently 865,000 miles. Scientists tell us that it is 4.6 billion years old. It has been observed that the sun shrinks at a rate of 5 feet an hour. In a day, the sun shrinks 120 ft. a day.
5 ft
x 24 hours
= 120 ft. a day
There are 365 days a year.
120 ft.
x 365 days
= 43805 ft. per year
In a mile there are 5280 ft.
5280/43805= 8.3 miles
8.3 miles per year. If we give the sun 600 million years to assume the current rate of shrinkage, then we have 4 billion years in which the sun has been shrinking. So:
8.3 miles per year
x 4,000,000,000 years
= 332,000,000,000 miles.
We must divide the number in half, as the Sun shrinks on both sides.
2/332,000,000,000
=166,000,000,000
The planet furthest from the sun, Pluto, is 3,660,000,000 miles away from the sun, on average. How can this be? Only 20 million years ago the sun would still have been as far out as earth’s orbit. To explain this, I have started a new theory. I call it the In-sun Theory. My theory explains the origin of life exactly the same as the Theory of Evolution, with one minor detail. The planets formed in the sun. The first organism appeared on earth three billion years ago in the sun. Or, maybe, a better explanation is that the sun, earth and other planets are not nearly as old as we have been told.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want, there are more of these kind of thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by R. Planet, posted 09-01-2002 6:59 AM R. Planet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Randy, posted 09-03-2002 8:59 PM JJboy has replied
 Message 35 by R. Planet, posted 09-04-2002 8:24 PM JJboy has not replied
 Message 40 by doctrbill, posted 10-25-2002 1:24 AM JJboy 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