|
Author
|
Topic: Investigation of Biblical science errors
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 23 of 138 (113407)
06-07-2004 9:36 PM
|
|
|
Biblical Science?
If I step on any toes hear, I apologize in advance. Having said that, allow me to offer my humble opinion. The bible is no more a science book than a science textbook is an excercise in religious literature. If anyone thinks they can study science by utilizing the bible then they are most likely grasping at straws for graspings sake. Using this same reasoning, only an idiot would go looking for a revelation from god in a science book. Now, if you believe there is a god, then you may choose to utilize a science book as verification of the "intelligent" designers work, but you will be sorely disappointed if you attempt to utilize this same book in a search for revelation from god for a purpose to life. I will, despite the disagreement of several evolutionists here, give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that the bible does indeed offer some examples of knowledge about the universe that science is only now able to confirm and, to be sure, much of the written verbage is indeed poetic in nature, which to many people is as difficult to understand as is the purpose of a mime, other than to be an obnoxious nuisance. (side note: please don't ask me to quote any verses of the bible that have to do with science. If you don't like poetry, and you don't believe in some sort of god/creator/designer anyway, then you most likely wouldn't accept any verses offered as being scientific in nature and I won't be forced to go dig up a bible. So if you want objective science, stick to the science textbooks. If you want an occasional reference to the handiwork of god in making the universe, then stick to the bible. If you seek revelation from god, don't go looking in the scientific literature and if you seek a revelation from science, don't go looking in the bible, or any other religious piece of literature. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 24 by sidelined, posted 06-07-2004 11:16 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 25 of 138 (113494)
06-08-2004 1:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by sidelined
06-07-2004 11:16 PM
|
|
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 p.s. The answer to your signature riddle, and its flaw, lies in plain view within the riddle itself. This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-14-2004 09:52 AM
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by sidelined, posted 06-07-2004 11:16 PM | | sidelined has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 27 of 138 (114350)
06-11-2004 2:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by sidelined
06-11-2004 12:21 AM
|
|
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? Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by sidelined, posted 06-11-2004 12:21 AM | | sidelined has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by sidelined, posted 06-11-2004 11:21 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 36 of 138 (114764)
06-13-2004 1:18 AM
|
|
|
Exactly as I predicted!
Some of these latest posts in this thread have proven my earlier point that nothing in the bible that is shown to a determined non-believer will ever be able to convince them that there are indeed references to scientific realities that science has only recently uncovered and found to be true. The reason for this, as I have always stated, is that they have purposefully become entrenched, and willfully predisposed themselves with the idea that the bible can not possibly contain any kind of reference to scientific realities that are now, or may someday be, confirmed by science. It does not matter what they are shown, as they have already pre-manufactored in their unbelieving mind an excuse for not accepting anything that is presented to them, regardless of the obvious references, which are clearly visible to the well educated, open-minded individual. They keep their mind closed at all times, and at all costs, to the possibility of any valid statements in the bible when it comes to science. These same individuals will claim that they are not so disposed, and that if they are shown any real evidence of biblical accuracy concerning science, that they will willingly accept such evidence but the reality is that they never will, they never can, due to their pertinacious attitude, coupled with their aversion to the possibility of the bible being true. I have always, and shall always, approach every aspect of life with my mind opened to new possibilities. That it why I can easily validate the biblical references to scientific realities, without automatically having to validate any religious belief in and of itself. Cheers This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-14-2004 09:29 AM
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 48 of 138 (114927)
06-13-2004 10:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by Silent H
06-13-2004 9:02 AM
|
|
Re: Exactly as I predicted!
holmes writes: I want you to explain how my post did this. I did not single out any post as an example, yours included.
holmes writes: I went on to suggest that your argument actually seems to provide more support for other ancient religions which had better (or more similarities to science with their) creation myths. How should we judge them then? I would suppose that you could judge them with the same degree of ductility and incredulity with which you may desire to view any ancient religious writing. It is not for me to adjudicate the level of approbation you may tender any writing, religious or otherwise. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by Silent H, posted 06-13-2004 9:02 AM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 49 by Silent H, posted 06-14-2004 6:50 AM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 51 of 138 (115059)
06-14-2004 12:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by Silent H
06-14-2004 6:50 AM
|
|
Re: Exactly as I predicted!
In message #31 you partially quote my statement in message #25, stopping in mid-sentence, and then offer the following;
holmes writes: Okey doke. While you're at it I'd like you to explain how science will confirm that space is a metallic (or solid anyway) sphere, and that everything revolves around the earth. It is well known that the Bible not only suggests this, but that the Xian church fought to stop heliocentric theory because it was incongruous with those writings. While you offer no substantiation for the above statements, (not to imply that you could not do so if you really desired to emphasize that this is true), you then move outside the realm of my initial point by offering the following;
And moving on from space, I have had a longstanding question that no Xian has ever adequately answered... In a portion of the Bible which discusses marriage "laws", it states that a groom may accuse his wife of not being a virgin on their wedding night. If he is right then he gets a divorce and she gets stoned to death. I can understand how someone, while executing a superficial reading of my posts, can lead themselves to believe that I have sanctioned a position that is in reality, nearly opposite of my initial claim. I have edited the quote in message #25 as follows:
darkstar writes: 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. I find it telling that you would quote me in such a lazy manner, not only stopping in mid-sentence but then completely ignoring my point about those who would choose to use the bible as a science book.
holmes writes: You said the latest posts. Not some of the latest post, or a few of the latest posts. I have edited message #36 for your pleasure. Feel better now? Then.....
holmes writes: I went on to suggest that your argument actually seems to provide more support for other ancient religions which had better (or more similarities to science with their) creation myths. How should we judge them then? To which I replied;
I would suppose that you could judge them with the same degree of ductility and incredulity with which you may desire to view any ancient religious writing. It is not for me to adjudicate the level of approbation you may tender any writing, religious or otherwise. I am quite sure that the above statement is a complete clarification of my position regarding the responsible party when an opinion or position is held about any writings. But still you wrote;
holmes writes: So you feel there is no objective criteria on which to judge the scientific merits of creation myths? That seems to be opposite of the stand you have taken in previous posts. I suppose I will have to accept the fact that you find it difficult to understand that expressed thoughts and ideas must be kept intact in order to avoid a cognitive dissonance from developing within the structure and context of any given discourse. You seem to prefer quotes removed from their context in order to support your position. Of course there is always a possibility that objective criterion may be employed, but I have not seen it demonstrated by many thus far. I find no fault in those who choose to believe in god, or random chance, or natural selection, etc., etc., etc., with the exception being those individuals who practice prejudicial exclusion of opposing thought and ideas that is based solely upon their conviction that error holds no place in their personal ideology. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by Silent H, posted 06-14-2004 6:50 AM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by Silent H, posted 06-14-2004 1:56 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 53 of 138 (115093)
06-14-2004 2:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by sidelined
06-13-2004 6:28 AM
|
|
Re: Exactly as I predicted!
sidelined writes: We are not predisposed DarkStar but neither are we awed by references that are in no way scientific. No one here has given even a remotely plausible example of how the bible has any scientific value whatsoever. We have pointed out time and again that they are in fact in error. I am of the belief that you are indeed predisposed, and the above statement seems to confirm that belief. I find it difficult to fathom the idea that you have not been exposed to a plethora of examples of scientific references in the bible and yet you hold firm to the notion that the bible cannot have "any scientific value whatsoever" because "no one here has given even a remotely plausible example".
sidelined writes: We are not closed minded but neither are we gullible. As has been pointed out you have yet to present a valid arguement that actually is on the mark.We haven't even begun to apply the same level of demands upon your 'evidence' as science is subjected to constantly. Such statements as you offered in your post positively reveal the accuracy of my point, which for purposes of clarification, will be posted here with those accurate references pointed out.
DarkStar writes: Some of these latest posts in this thread have proven my earlier point that nothing in the bible that is shown to a determined non-believer will ever be able to convince them that there are indeed references to scientific realities that science has only recently uncovered and found to be true. The reason for this, as I have always stated, is that they have purposefully become entrenched, and willfully predisposed themselves with the idea that the bible can not possibly contain any kind of reference to scientific realities that are now, or may someday be, confirmed by science. It does not matter what they are shown, as they have already pre-manufactored in their unbelieving mind an excuse for not accepting anything that is presented to them, regardless of the obvious references, which are clearly visible to the well educated, open-minded individual. They keep their mind closed at all times, and at all costs, to the possibility of any valid statements in the bible when it comes to science. These same individuals will claim that they are not so disposed, and that if they are shown any real evidence of biblical accuracy concerning science, that they will willingly accept such evidence but the reality is that they never will, they never can, due to their pertinacious attitude, coupled with their aversion to the possibility of the bible being true. I have always, and shall always, approach every aspect of life with my mind opened to new possibilities. That it why I can easily validate the biblical references to scientific realities, without automatically having to validate any religious belief in and of itself. Now if the bible is true, and I most surely am not stating here that it is, it would be a most interesting thing to have a conversation with the late Dr. Carl Sagan who said;
"You have to know the past to understand the present." and.....
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries." Cosmos p.333 and.....
Quotes From A Pale Blue Dot..... "It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known." "But for us, it's different. Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam." "Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." Carl Sagan 1934-1996 I have spent countless hours being fascinated by Dr. Carl Sagan. He is sorely missed. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by sidelined, posted 06-13-2004 6:28 AM | | sidelined has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 2:38 PM | | DarkStar has replied | | | Message 56 by sidelined, posted 06-14-2004 6:27 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 55 of 138 (115126)
06-14-2004 4:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
06-14-2004 2:38 PM
|
|
Re: But still no information given.
jar writes: So far you have not refuted any of the scientific errors that have been introduced. So far I have not seen any scientific errors introduced with any semblance of clarity or reference, which would be required if one has any expectation of receiving an honest and thoughtful response. jar writes: The issue is not whether or not there is any science in the Bible, the issue is that there is so many errors in what passes for science in the Bible that it is an unreliable source. That statement must be viewed as dealing primarily with individual perceptions of what constitutes science and therefore can not be considered a valid statement. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 2:38 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 57 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 6:28 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 58 of 138 (115205)
06-14-2004 10:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by jar
06-14-2004 6:28 PM
|
|
Re: Perhaps you can start with those refernced in
jar writes: these posts. Message 1 (Thread Investigation of Biblical science errors in Forum Is It Science?) I saw two incomplete references. No reference point was given for either of them. Please supply those for me. Thanks. jar writes: Message 13 (Thread Investigation of Biblical science errors in Forum Is It Science?) Well I don't read the bible much but even I was able to see the error in your interpretation. Lateral air flow continually causes winds to blow both north and south. Perhaps you should have waited for crashfrog's illustrations in Message 19 which clearly confirm the referenced passage in the bible. jar writes: Message 22 (Thread Investigation of Biblical science errors in Forum Is It Science?) Did you even bother to check these out for yourself? No, obviously not. You expect me to do so when it is quite obvious that you did not do so yourself or you would not have even considered them. I think Sidelined is either jerking your chain or he never bothered to check them out either. "Daniel 4:11" is about a dream daniel was told, and in reference to "Matthew 24:29", Sidelined errs in his thinking again. The moon does indeed give off light. It may be a reflected light but it is light nevertheless. And as for "Mark 13:24,25", this is obviously speaking about asteroids. Did you or Sidelined even bother to check out the Greek? Obviously not or you would have known this already. jar writes: Message 31 (Thread Investigation of Biblical science errors in Forum Is It Science?) Another meaningless post. Holmes too neglected to supply reference points, and I have already reponded to him in Message 51, asking him to supply the reference material for his statement. Holmes writes: Okey doke. While you're at it I'd like you to explain how science will confirm that space is a metallic (or solid anyway) sphere, and that everything revolves around the earth. It is well known that the Bible not only suggests this, but that the Xian church fought to stop heliocentric theory because it was incongruous with those writings. I believe this was originally posted in Message 31 and as yet I have noticed no offering by him of that material. Regarding the hymen issue, this is hardly a scientific reference. Let Holmes give me the biblical reference where this practice was commanded by their god and I will reconsider this issue. Holmes made several assertions in his post, not one of which contained any sort of reference point other than the generic "remember this is the bible talking" mantra. I suggest that the three of you forget about expecting me to look up any more biblical scientific references for you because it is quite obvious that none of you was willing to perform even the slightest bit of investigative research, which you fully expected me to do, and when I complied I find out that you three, and most likely crashfrog as well, would rather waste peoples time then do your homework. Do not attempt to waste my time again. You will be ignored! Jeers (color edited to assist reading) This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-18-2004 09:02 PM
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 6:28 PM | | jar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2004 2:39 AM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 61 of 138 (115267)
06-15-2004 3:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by sidelined
06-14-2004 11:45 PM
|
|
Sidelined silent on biblical references
The most telling thing in Message 59 is your total lack of defense regarding your biblical references in Message 22 which leaves one with the impression that you may now realize that said references were indefensible, but I have not yet seen you admit to this.
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by sidelined, posted 06-14-2004 11:45 PM | | sidelined has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 62 by sidelined, posted 06-15-2004 11:06 AM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 63 of 138 (115427)
06-15-2004 3:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by sidelined
06-15-2004 11:06 AM
|
|
Re: Sidelined silent on biblical references
sidelined writes: Exactly why would I give a defense of my biblical reference when you have closed your mind and thrown a fit concerning your inability to stick around and debate? You also never asked me to defend it so quit your bitchin'! Look who's doing the bitchin' now! And the most obvious reason for your lack of defense of your biblical references is, as I have already stated, they are indefensible. You got caught with your pants down and then cry foul because someone brings that fact to light. Stop your whining and defend your references, oh wait, that's right, you can't defend them because you know full well that they are indefensible! sidelined writes: Why,also,would I ask you to look up more references for me when you have not defended the ones you brought out in Post # 25? As for the references I supplied in Message 25, they were fully defended.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 showed a direct correlation between what the bible says and what science says and that they were in complete agreement on those issues. I fully supported my references, something you seem incapable of doing. Now, what I would like for you to do is to look deep into a mirror and repeat to yourself, over and over until it finally sinks in, the following phrase, which you wrote by the way. If you cannot be bothered to debate fine,piss off, but don't play the part of the wounded child who cries foul when things do not go his way. Please let me know if that ever sinks in. If and when it finally does, maybe, just maybe, we will allow you to play with the big boys again. Cheers This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-15-2004 02:40 PM
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by sidelined, posted 06-15-2004 11:06 AM | | sidelined has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by sidelined, posted 06-16-2004 1:57 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 64 of 138 (115429)
06-15-2004 3:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by sidelined
06-15-2004 11:06 AM
|
|
Re: Sidelined silent on biblical references
Everybody else play nice now! Cheers This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-15-2004 02:39 PM
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by sidelined, posted 06-15-2004 11:06 AM | | sidelined has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by Silent H, posted 06-15-2004 3:53 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 66 of 138 (115474)
06-15-2004 5:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
06-15-2004 2:39 AM
|
|
crashfrog writes: DarkStar writes: and most likely crashfrog as well, would rather waste peoples time then do your homework. 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. I did say most likely, not definitely, and I am still here awaiting some honest debate, void of nonsensical claims about so-called scientific references in the bible that are anything but when in reality they refer to dreams and such. Sidelined is still trying to defend his position, knowing it has no validity, and Holmes is still making me wait for the reference points that I requested several messages ago, while claiming I refuse to debate. Let's keep it honest and see where it goes. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2004 2:39 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 69 of 138 (115495)
06-15-2004 6:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by MrHambre
06-15-2004 5:46 PM
|
|
Re: Small Favor
MrHambre writes: DarkStar, Any way you could switch from your black script to something we can read? regards, Esteban Hambre I am somewhat perplexed by the fact that some are having difficulty reading the black text, as it shows up quite well on my screen. Nevertheless, I shall endeavor to perform some experimentation in an attempt to find a more suitable way of posting, short of leaving all text in white on such a bland screen. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by MrHambre, posted 06-15-2004 5:46 PM | | MrHambre has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by Coragyps, posted 06-15-2004 6:24 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 71 of 138 (115508)
06-15-2004 6:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by Coragyps
06-15-2004 6:24 PM
|
|
Re: Small Favor
I shall make every effort to remember to post in this manner so as to make the reading of my posts easier on all concerned, with the exception being that only the format will change, my opinions and points of view will remain as they are, at least for now. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by Coragyps, posted 06-15-2004 6:24 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
