|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: 51 scientific facts that disprove the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In the Why so friggin' confident? various spin-off threads have been proposed. There is definite interest in this one. Bertot claimed
Bertot writes: ...that about 100 yeas ago the Academy of sciences put out a list of 50 or 51 scientific discrepncies in the Bible and that not a single one of those discrepencies remains or that any scientist will back those diescrpencies anymore... in Message 333 of that thread. I Googled it out of interest. It seems to be a 'fact' touted by evangelicals and their brethren, but nobody seems to be able to name these fifty one facts, the claim usually goes:
quote: The spirit of the claim is no doubt true: science does not have dogma and changes its views as evidence roles in whereas the Bible doesn't change - only its interpretation by its readers. Is the claim itself actually true? What are these facts? If it is true, does it support the strong claim that the Bible is eternally TRUE whereas as science is only temporally 'true'? If anybody can track them down, that would be great. A poster on this newsgroup claims to have spoken with the French Academy of Sciences and received the {translated} response of:
quote: Is this one of those religious urban legends that keep circulating because the people that pass it on simply believe (with a high degree of confidence) that it is fact based on what turns out to be highly spurious grounds? I'd say this is one for The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Mod, I will prepare the popcorn for this thread. Do you want butter on yours? I'm betting that the "list" is precisely as you say - a "religious urban legend." If those suspicions are true, I'm sure it should be trivial enough to track down the chirping crickets - that is what crows eat isn't it? To maintain topic integrity, I have managed to track down an early version of this claim:
quote: Loraine Boettner, first in a series of articles in a magazine in the 30s, followed by a book in the 1940s. The full article with the quote can be found here. There are some fun additional quotes in there like
quote: Do you think he even noticed how he managed to contradict himself there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Are we up to 30?
31) The higher you go, the thinner things get until there is only vacuum. There is no firmament capable of holding back the primeval waters, nor has there ever been. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Mod writes:
It appears that you've so soon forgotten that relative to the Exodus and the wilderness sojourn of the Israelites, creationist science research has falsified the alleged traditional Mt Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula because new evidence shows that the actual Mt Sinai is in Saudi Arabia. The spirit of the claim is no doubt true: science does not have dogma and changes its views as evidence roles in whereas the Bible doesn't change - only its interpretation by its readers. Is the claim itself actually true? What are these facts? If it is true, does it support the strong claim that the Bible is eternally TRUE whereas as science is only temporally 'true'?
Are you suggesting that this means the Bible has changed? Or are you suggesting that this is evidence that science never updates its ideas as new evidence rolls in? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I took your comment to which I responded to allege that anything Biblical is dogmatic "Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles" (Online Dictionary). (I would change the dictionary wording to unfalsifiable.) You seem to have dived into the deep end a little. I didn't use the word 'dogmatic' I used the word 'dogma'. So if you want to think I was alleging that the Bible is dogmatic you should have used the primary definition of dogmatic which, in that same dictionary is "Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma." Dogma is defined
quote: I was using it to mean something akin to the more general definition laid out in (2). I did this because, well look at the quote I was referring to:
quote: I took the spirit of this claim and realised it was largely true. The Bible hasn't changed, the claims laid out in it are the same today as they were three hundred years ago. The claims of science have changed. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Preposterous. These people are materialistic linguists with an agenda. I've never seen a French verb turn into a Spanish Noun. You can wait 4,000 years if you want and it'll never happen.
As if finding evidence of common ancestry is evidence that languages have changed so that German can become Indian! Nonsense and silliness. How can we teach this to our kids? You know that 200 years ago linguists said some things which today no modern linguist will defend???
the languages of Europe and northern India can be arranged in a kind of family tree that goes back to a single Proto-Indo-European predecessor Anybody can make a family tree of anything. I can make a family tree so that Navajo is the brother of English - it doesn't mean anything. What if I made a family tree of cutlery? Would that prove that a fork can turn into a spoon?
great undocumented migrations of prehistory Why do lingualutionists always rely on baseless assertions - this just shows them for what they are! Undocumented indeed! How do they know then? And where do these lingualutionists think that languages came from in the first place? How can they have any 'so-called theory of lingual common ancestry' until they have observed a new language springing into existence in a labarotory? And even then - how would they know that that happened in history - we can't observe history!!!!! Actually, that was kind of fun, I can see why evolution deniers do it now: I didn't have to waste any time checking my post was consistent with those pesky facts.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024