Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
36 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, ProtoTypical, Theodoric (4 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,001 Year: 22,037/19,786 Month: 600/1,834 Week: 100/500 Day: 58/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   51 scientific facts that disprove the Bible
Modulous
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1 of 167 (496264)
01-27-2009 10:04 AM


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:
"In the year 1861 the French Academy of Science published a list of fifty-one so-called scientific facts, each of which, it was alleged, disproved some statement in the Bible. Today the Bible remains as it was then, but not one of those fifty-one so-called facts is held by men of science."

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:
We did not find in the tables of the Reports of the Academy of Science in 1861 the existence of such a list. Nothing makes it possible to affirm that this list existed.

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 Forum The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 01-27-2009 11:27 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 01-29-2009 8:03 PM Modulous has responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 167 (496272)
01-27-2009 10:40 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5414
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 3 of 167 (496276)
01-27-2009 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
01-27-2009 10:04 AM


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."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2009 10:04 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2009 11:49 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 4 of 167 (496279)
01-27-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
01-27-2009 11:27 AM


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:
In the year 1861 the French Academy of Science published a list of fifty-one so-called scientific facts, each of which, it was alleged, disproved some statement in the Bible. Today the Bible remains as it was then, but not one of those fifty-one so-called facts is held by men of science. Distinction should always be made between the speculations in the realm of science and its clearly proven facts. The speculations of science are like the shifting currents of the sea, while the Scriptures have breasted them like the rock of Gibralter for two thousand years. The Bible has not been shown to contradict so much as one proven fact of science; on the contrary the account which it presents of the origin and order of the world, as contrasted with that found in other ancient books, corresponds with the findings of modern science to a degree that is perfectly marvelous. The conflict which some people suppose to exist between the Bible and science simply does not exist.

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:
Organic evolution, for instance, as it is usually set forth, rules out the supernatural and contradicts the Bible. But it must be remembered that organic evolution is not science, but only a theory, an hypothesis. Not one of the five arguments usually advanced to support it is sound, and many distinguished scientists do not believe in the theory of organic evolution but in fiat creation as taught in the Bible.

A minister who has not studied science has no right to invade the domain of science and speak freely about it.


Do you think he even noticed how he managed to contradict himself there?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 01-27-2009 11:27 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Nighttrain, posted 01-27-2009 8:03 PM Modulous has not yet responded

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2333 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 5 of 167 (496336)
01-27-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Modulous
01-27-2009 11:49 AM


Dredging in the Dust
Hi, Mod, I wonder what the fascination is that believers have with the past. If they are not dredging up this item (1861 forpete`ssake), they are waffling on about Charles Lyell said this, or Darwin might have said that. Are modern scientific discoveries so far beyond their ken, they have to scour waste-baskets?

How about tackling today`s news item:

SIR David Attenborough receives hate mail over his belief in evolution, the British broadcaster and naturalist has revealed.

Sir David is preparing for more letters telling him to "burn in hell" when his latest television show, a documentary on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, is aired in the UK on Monday.

"They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance," Sir David told Radio Times magazine.

The popular 82-year-old said people often asked him why he did not "give credit" in his programs to God for creating the natural world.

"They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds," Sir David said.

"I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball.

"The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

More on

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24973873-5003402,00.html

BTW, anybody got a name for that little critter?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2009 11:49 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Huntard, posted 01-28-2009 1:56 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 01-28-2009 4:13 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 63 by 8upwidit2, posted 02-08-2009 9:24 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 6 of 167 (496396)
01-28-2009 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Nighttrain
01-27-2009 8:03 PM


Re: Dredging in the Dust
Reminds me of an incident here in The Netherlands, where the EO (evangalical broadcasting), who were airing his shows, had edited them to exclude any reference to millions of years ago and so forth. See here, here and here.

That worm's probably a Thelazia


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Nighttrain, posted 01-27-2009 8:03 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 7 of 167 (496401)
01-28-2009 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Nighttrain
01-27-2009 8:03 PM


Re: Dredging in the Dust
There is a nematode worm called Loa loa filariasis which is colloquially known as the 'African eye worm', adult worms often migrate to the eye but they don't need to pass to the eye as part of their life cycle, so I'm, not sure this is what Sir David was thinking of.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Nighttrain, posted 01-27-2009 8:03 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 8 of 167 (496405)
01-28-2009 4:56 AM


i've searched for info on the 'list' and couldnt find anything

i've never heard of it


olivortex
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 9 of 167 (496408)
01-28-2009 5:13 AM


We the french always have to pay for the others! whyyyy???? ;)


www.myspace.com/olivortex

"What would you do if you were stuck in one place and every day was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?

Ralph: That about sums it up for me."

Groundhog Day


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Nighttrain, posted 01-28-2009 6:17 AM olivortex has responded

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2333 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 10 of 167 (496415)
01-28-2009 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by olivortex
01-28-2009 5:13 AM


Ze French
We the french always have to pay for the others! whyyyy????

Because you are always such good sports. :-)

And welcome to EVC.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by olivortex, posted 01-28-2009 5:13 AM olivortex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Parasomnium, posted 01-28-2009 6:46 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 12 by olivortex, posted 01-28-2009 8:23 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 1035 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 11 of 167 (496418)
01-28-2009 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nighttrain
01-28-2009 6:17 AM


Re: Ze French
Hahaha! Aussome!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Nighttrain, posted 01-28-2009 6:17 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

olivortex
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 12 of 167 (496425)
01-28-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nighttrain
01-28-2009 6:17 AM


Re: Ze French
thank you :)

i think i'll be on this forum more than once!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Nighttrain, posted 01-28-2009 6:17 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3298 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 13 of 167 (496458)
01-28-2009 11:28 AM


Our own list?
As it looks as if this list is yet another piece of creationist propaganda, couldn't we come up with The EvC List of 51 Scientific Facts that disprove the Bible?

1. The Sun does not orbit the Earth.
2. Pi does not equal 3.
3. There ain't no corners of the Earth.
4. The Earth is not 6-10,000 years old
5. There was never a global Flood event
6. Species arise gradually through evolution, not suddenly via
special Creation

Edited by Brian, : updated list

Edited by Brian, : update list


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 01-28-2009 11:53 AM Brian has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 01-28-2009 12:00 PM Brian has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 01-28-2009 12:21 PM Brian has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 01-28-2009 1:06 PM Brian has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 14 of 167 (496461)
01-28-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Brian
01-28-2009 11:28 AM


Re: Our own list?
Brian writes:

As it looks as if this list is yet another piece of creationist propaganda, couldn't we come up with The EvC List of 51 Scientific Facts that disprove the Bible?


Good idea!

2. Pi does not equal 3.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 01-28-2009 11:28 AM Brian has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1630 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 15 of 167 (496464)
01-28-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Brian
01-28-2009 11:28 AM


Re: Our own list?
(3) There ain't no corners of the Earth.

Edited by Taz, : changed 2 to 3


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 01-28-2009 11:28 AM Brian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 01-28-2009 12:27 PM Taz has responded
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 01-29-2009 11:06 PM Taz has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019