Investigation of Biblical science errors

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:

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 is just like when scientists confirm something "our mothers already know". Journalists love those stories; they eat that folksy shit up.But the fact that the conventional motherly wisdom - mothers, after all, not being a bunch of dummies - occasionally hits it big isn't evidence that getting pregnant puts you on the phone with God.Why would scientific accuracies in the Bible be any more meaningful?

Didn't I agree with you that there was science in the Bible? Because I'm pretty sure I did, in two separate posts.Well, whatever. I can recognize a hasty retreat when I read one.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-15-2004 01:39 AM

Pardon me, but that sounds like another attempt at a circular argument. If you a priori consider any false information from the Bible to be a dream, vision, or simple poetry, then naturally you're going to be able to conclude that the Bible contains only scientifically true facts.Circular arguments and equivocation aren't honest debate. If you're going to put forth certain statements in the Bible as scientific statements, and then assign significance to their accuracy, you're going to have to accept the same reasoning turned against you, and accept that similar Bible statements are significant in their inaccuracy. You can't hold up the hits and dismiss the misses as "dreams."

Despite it being supported by a vast wieght of scientific evidence?What would it take to convince you if evidence won't do it? 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Then how do you know it even exists? How can you make yourself sophistry-proof (to the greatest degree possible) without basing your conclusions on objective evidence; that is, evidence that has the power to convince any open-minded person? Yet, nobody could refute their evidence, and as a result, persons who were intellectually committed to having an open mind about evidence were convinced.Why is it that the so-called "evidence" of creationism only "convinces" those who are already convinced? Then email him. This isn't a private message board for you two. This is a public message board, where anyone has the right to reply to messages, including me.You don't have to reply, but I'm not going to stop addressing errors, inconsistencies, and outright falsehoods in your posts simply because you asked me to. Unless, apparently, the Ideas being expressed are the ones you disagree with.Get used to my avatar; you're going to be seeing it right under yours a lot.

Well, its certainly inaccurate to describe these gentlemen as creationists; if you care to read their writings you'll note that they're very careful to distance themselves from the pseudoscientific buffoonery of groups like Answers in Genesis.As for this guy: The link you gave says it all:

quote:

---

He earned his science degrees as an evolutionist, but he did not become a biblical creationist until more than a year after he committed his life to Christ.

---

McMurtry is the precise example of what I was describing; individuals who would never have taken creationism on its own merits, but adopt it because they already hold Christian beliefs. It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion.Your links have strengthened it, not disproven it. Nobody who is a creation is so because of the evidence; they're creationists because of a religious committment to Christian dogma. Dr. Grady is the perfect example; thank you for providing it.

When did I say that?No, what I'm saying is that McMurtry is only a creationist because of an ideological committment to Christianity which supercedes, in his mind, the responsibility to come to conclusions supported by evidence.If the evidence for creationism had convinced him, we would have become a creationist first and then committed his life to Christ.Instead, the opposite occurred. As a former creationist, I was convinced by the evidence.