Investigation of Biblical science errors

I'm not sure where that falls in the scientific spectrum though

Dream or not it does indicate a certain lack of understanding of the earth's shape.

Sunrise? Sunset? Moonlight? Can the sun actually rise and set? Does the moon actually put forth light? No, of course not. Science confirms the rotation of the earth on it's axis and the moon reflects the light from the sun, and yet terms like these are in constant use even today.

Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Re: Biblical Science?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'"Cheers

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 ingredientScience 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.

Re: Biblical Science?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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?

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.

sidelined writes:
Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.This part "shall not cause her light to shine" is an insight into the way these people interpreted their observations.It is one of many examples of incorreect evaluation of observation.

DarkStar writes:
With this line of extremely flawed reasoning and illogical thinking, I gather you also contend that they considered the sun male and the moon female. Talk about your ad hominem arguments. Exactly how did you determine their actual frame of mind? On what base of information do you support this belief?

sidelined writes:
Science operates on that which it can test.....

DarkStar writes:
The following link has an interesting bit of information.....
http://www.geocities.com/lewiston_stargazer/evidence.htmlThese charts show explicit informational evidence, and the lack thereof, regarding the Steady State & Big Bang theories.An obvious tongue-in-cheek display, this is nevertheless a semi-clear example of what such a chart may look like if proponents of each theory were required to proffer examples of known evidence for the opposing viewpoint. Though facetious in nature, it does signify the antipodean nature of differing points of view and therefore gives us great insight as to the antonymic reality of evolution vs intelligent design.

sidelined writes:
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.

DarkStar writes:
And this line of reasoning is exactly what I am referring to when I state that neither the theory of evolution nor the theory of intelligent design has adequately explained the existance of all living things. When considering the history of science, what we once knew to be fully true is now untrue as new discoveries bring new truths

What I thought would have been obvious even to a younger person I see is not so obvious here. Even after having explained the nature of the charts as I presented them, {a simple click on "back" would have revealed that these were to be filled in by students), and what they may look like if proponents of each theory were required to proffer examples of known evidence for the opposing viewpoint, I must still return to explain that the charts were supposed to be blank, hence my aforementioned tongue-in-cheek humor remark regarding their use as actual charts of verified information. When something this simple must be explained in such repeated detail, the possibility of cultivating meaningful discourse becomes an evanescent probability