Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 6:31 AM
18 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,246 Year: 5,283/19,786 Month: 1,405/873 Week: 301/460 Day: 1/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   Investigation of Biblical science errors
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3931 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 76 of 138 (115978)
06-17-2004 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by DarkStar
06-15-2004 5:09 PM


Holmes is still making me wait for the reference points that I requested several messages ago, while claiming I refuse to debate.

You're the guy that's telling people to be honest?

Okey-doke. I'm going to pretend like you honestly have no clue that the church fought heliocentric science theories based on quotes THROUGHOUT the Bible regarding the nature of the earth and universe. I mean you can look through things like Job and Psalms and well... just about anywhere the Bible describes God's manufacture of the earth and its relation to the stars.

But hey, you don't have to actually know the Bible, or Xian history, you just have to claim it contains science facts that science reveals later! Darkstar indeed, the lights seem out to me.

Anyhoo, we'll set those aside as I'm pretty confident you can turn anything like that into mistakes of men regarding poetics... until they are similar to science and then it is fact, oh yeah and GOD HIMSELF isn't poetics apparently.

Yeah, I'll set those aside to have you address something which cannot be poetics. It is the rule of law. It is sex=broken hymen. It is a WIVE'S TALE.

deuteronomy 22:13-21

Now let's keep it HONEST and see where it goes...

This message has been edited by holmes, 06-17-2004 05:43 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 5:09 PM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by DarkStar, posted 06-17-2004 9:50 PM Silent H has responded

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 3125 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 77 of 138 (116014)
06-17-2004 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by sidelined
06-17-2004 1:32 AM


Re: What dreams may come + asteroids
They obviously did not,as I pointed,out understand the Earth to be a sphere but rather as a great circle the entirety of which could be seen from a great enough height.

That is true. You probably wouldn't have this sort of dream if you understood that the earth was a sphere instead of a circle. Dream or not it does indicate a certain lack of understanding of the earth's shape.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by sidelined, posted 06-17-2004 1:32 AM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by sidelined, posted 06-17-2004 8:48 PM bob_gray has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 138 (116202)
06-17-2004 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by bob_gray
06-17-2004 10:22 AM


Re: What dreams may come + asteroids
bob_gray98

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

It is,though,fully consistent with what we would expect of people who may have access to mountains. From the top of a mountain looking 360 degrees around the world does indeed appear as a circle.

The bible also shows evidence of a belief that the sun was a fire that could burn men as a regular fire would.It is not beyond understanding that they were primitve in many ways as far as understanding of the earth,stars and planets goes since they had little in the way of proper observation and investigation into the actual workings of the movement of these objects.

I mentioned earlier about their mistaken belief that the moon gave off its own light. However it is easy to see that this could be an error on their part when they observe a full moon in the daytime sky. If you did not know about the relationship of the sun and moon and how they are oriented in the sky it would be easy to draw that conclusion.

As they say things are not always as they seem.


You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by bob_gray, posted 06-17-2004 10:22 AM bob_gray has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by bob_gray, posted 06-17-2004 9:14 PM sidelined has responded
 Message 81 by DarkStar, posted 06-17-2004 10:39 PM sidelined has responded

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 3125 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 79 of 138 (116207)
06-17-2004 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by sidelined
06-17-2004 8:48 PM


You paddle your kayak...
6 minutes?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by sidelined, posted 06-17-2004 8:48 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by sidelined, posted 06-18-2004 1:26 AM bob_gray has not yet responded

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 138 (116226)
06-17-2004 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Silent H
06-17-2004 6:42 AM


Keeping it honest
Ok, being in agreement to keep it honest, let's look back beginning with your post in Message 31 and then take it from there. If I have missed any posts where you supplied requested biblical references, please point them out for me. Thanks

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.

Darkstar:
I will concede your point about the church, (with the understanding that you are referring to the catholic hierarchy here), fighting to stop heliocentric theory. I do this not only for times sake, which will save me from having to do a study in the history of the catholic church, but because I can imagine the catholic hierarchy doing just such a thing, and also because regardless of what the catholic church may have done, it has no bearing on what the christian's bible does say. So then, please provide the biblical references for this claim "that space is a metallic (or solid anyway) sphere, and that everything revolves around the earth." so that I may check them out for myself and then I will be in a better position to put forth my opinion and state whether I am in agreement, or disagreement, with your position. Thanks

holmes writes:

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.

The woman proves her innocence (and remember this is the BIBLE talking) by showing bloodstains on the marriage bed's sheets. The idea being that virgins have hymens that will break on first penetration by a man.

This is an old wive's tale that has been debunked every way AND Sunday. There just is no truth to this. Women can lose their hymen without sex, and may not lose it even after several sessions of sex.

DarkStar: If I am not mistaken, I have already addressed the hymen issue in Message 31 and have received no response that I am aware of. I await your reply, and your biblical references addressing these points. Remember, we're keeping it honest here. Thanks

Cheers


BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 06-17-2004 6:42 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Silent H, posted 06-18-2004 6:42 AM DarkStar has responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 138 (116239)
06-17-2004 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by sidelined
06-17-2004 8:48 PM


Grasping at straws.....or should I say strawman!
NEWS FLASH:
Explosions rocked this sleeply little community just before sunrise today. By midday, firefighters were still battling numerous blazes caused by the explosions at the local fireworks factory. Fears rose as residents became increasingly convinced that the blaze would escape the immediate surroundings and threaten the entire town. Fire chief Kendall, attempting to calm their fears, declared that the blaze was nearly under control and should be fully extinguished by sunset today.

WEATHER REPORT:
Showers will be ending later in the day with the clouds moving out of the area. Temperatures will cooler than normal tonight but will still be favorable for those of you who enjoy a quiet walk in the moonlight.

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. Let's get serious here and cease with the superfluous arguments that exhibit nothing more than a strawman mentality. I should have hoped that honest evolutionists would be above the kind of vacuous posting that has been going on here.

Jeers


BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by sidelined, posted 06-17-2004 8:48 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by sidelined, posted 06-19-2004 2:48 AM DarkStar has responded

sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 138 (116268)
06-18-2004 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by bob_gray
06-17-2004 9:14 PM


Re: You paddle your kayak...
bob_gray98

You got the right answer. Now I will have to bring a new one up and let it sit around waiting for an answer. Good show.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by bob_gray, posted 06-17-2004 9:14 PM bob_gray has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3931 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 83 of 138 (116349)
06-18-2004 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by DarkStar
06-17-2004 9:50 PM


Re: Keeping it honest
Look, maybe you are the most honest guy in the world. But if so, you are a bit confused.

regardless of what the catholic church may have done, it has no bearing on what the christian's bible does say.

For time's sake I have already dropped this specific charge, acknowledging that such passages are within text which can be said to be mistaken poetics. This argument has already been used by diehard Xians to defend the accuracy of the Bible despite having had the church be "sure" of meanings for centuries.

Thus, in a way I conceded defeat on this point within my first post. I'm a bit perplexed how Xians never seem to remember where passages are, or have an interest in seeking them out on their own, or just read up on the historical understandings of their Bible. But that is neither here nor there.

You can ignore the question of the Biblical description of the universe (around the earth) all you want for right now.

Even in my first message I said the main thing I wanted to hear about, because it was NOT in a poetical area, was why God doesn't seem to know how women work?

If I am not mistaken, I have already addressed the hymen issue in Message 31 and have received no response

Message 31 is MINE, and I have received no response on that issue that I am aware of.

I await your reply, and your biblical references addressing these points.

I already gave you the reference for bloody sheets = proof of virginity. Once again: deuteronomy 22:13-21

Pull yourself together man.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by DarkStar, posted 06-17-2004 9:50 PM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by DarkStar, posted 06-18-2004 9:59 PM Silent H has responded

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 138 (116583)
06-18-2004 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by bob_gray
06-16-2004 11:34 PM


Re: What dreams may come + asteroids
bob writes:

I don't know that anyone can make the claim about falling stars to be asteroids. We may know that now but there is no reference in the bible to an asteroid.

Star: from the Greek "Aster" meaning "star like".

Naw, couldn't possibly be referring to an "asteroid", now could it.....and if you believe that one I have some beautiful oceanfront property in Kansas that I would love to sell to you.

Cheers


BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by bob_gray, posted 06-16-2004 11:34 PM bob_gray has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by bob_gray, posted 06-18-2004 11:33 PM DarkStar has responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 138 (116585)
06-18-2004 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Silent H
06-18-2004 6:42 AM


Re: Keeping it honest
holmes writes:

DarkStar: If I am not mistaken, I have already addressed the hymen issue in Message 31 and have received no response

holmes writes:

Message 31 is MINE, and I have received no response on that issue that I am aware of.

DarkStar writes:

You are absolutely correct. My reply was in
Message 58
which has been color edited to assist reading.

Cheers


BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Silent H, posted 06-18-2004 6:42 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 06-20-2004 7:20 AM DarkStar has responded

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 3125 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 86 of 138 (116601)
06-18-2004 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by DarkStar
06-18-2004 9:42 PM


Re: What dreams may come + asteroids
Star: from the Greek "Aster" meaning "star like".
Naw, couldn't possibly be referring to an "asteroid", now could it.....

No, it couldn't. I'm not saying that the word "asteroid" and "star" don't have the same root. "Constellation" also has the same root. This is not compelling evidence that the writers of the bible had sufficient knowledge to distinguish between a star and an asteroid. Are you also going to claim that they understood that some of the stars we see are galaxies and not stars at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by DarkStar, posted 06-18-2004 9:42 PM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by DarkStar, posted 06-20-2004 11:26 PM bob_gray has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 138 (116632)
06-19-2004 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by DarkStar
06-17-2004 10:39 PM


Re: Grasping at straws.....or should I say strawman!
DarkStar

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.

No shit Sherlock! First off,did I point that out as a source of scientific error in the bible.No? Could it be that the use of sunrise and sunset is not a problem because there is no equivalent phrase that allows us to concisely inform someone of the rotation of a spherical Earth around its axis as defined by an invisible straight line intersecting the poles of the Earth.

Moonlight as a phrase is no problem except when it specifies the moon give of its own light source.

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.

And you still continue to refuse to participate with a rebuttal to the series of discussions we began. your post was this.

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

My reply was this

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 ingredient

Science 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.

Your reply

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?

And then we came to this.

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.

When do you suppose you will deign to bring an arguement to the table to show me where you disagree or whatever.I keep asking and you keep up with ad hominem attacks upon me with no rebuttal forthcoming on the issues I raised.

I do not know how much more I can do to persuade you to participate with substance instead of accusations. If you wish to concede,by all means, do not bother to debate me on the points and continue with your whining about everything other than the arguement at hand.
The ball is in your court.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by DarkStar, posted 06-17-2004 10:39 PM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by DarkStar, posted 06-20-2004 10:55 PM sidelined has responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3931 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 88 of 138 (116845)
06-20-2004 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by DarkStar
06-18-2004 9:59 PM


Re: Keeping it honest
My reply was in... which has been color edited to assist reading.

And it asks for a reference. I gave you a reference. It is deuteronomy. Are you now going to tell me that deuteronomy is not instruction from god, despite deuteronomy being the expression of God's laws to the people by his reps?

This is in the Bible in order to express God's laws!

Your only out is if you are about to admit that humans wrote the Bible and so some if not all of it may have no bearing on God's wisdom or wishes.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by DarkStar, posted 06-18-2004 9:59 PM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 12:33 AM Silent H has responded

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 138 (116938)
06-20-2004 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by sidelined
06-19-2004 2:48 AM


Sidelined Unconvinced of his Strawman Argument but a Rose by Any Other Name..........
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.....
www.geocities.com/lewiston_stargazer/evidence.html

These 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.

sidelined writes:

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.

DarkStar writes:

Again, I think this fully proves my earlier contention in Message 36 which reads as follows:

DarkStar writes:

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.

DarkStar writes:

Your statement,{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.},is a prime example of what I claimed earlier. Your statement above is a clear example of predispositional thought concerning the validity of anything scientific in the bible and yet you continue on saying,{I will await further examples if you have them to present.},as though your proclivity for bias is nonexistant. I can even perceive you responding with something along the lines of,{"No, I am not biased. All you have to do is show me something scientific"},which would in fact present an impossibility due to what I believe is your predilection towards denial of all things concerning scientifically based references in the bible, which I would think should be self evident to you, but even in that regard, I believe that you are in denial.

In another post, you referenced a passage that spoke of a tree seen around the world, (or something to that effect), and then used this as an example of scientific flaws in the bible when it obviously had nothing to do with science in the first place, as the passage was about a troubling dream that someone had. When this was brought to light by me, you did a sidestep and then still attempted to defended your position on the matter. It was at that moment that it became very clear to me that your bias of anything related to science and the bible runs extremely deep, deeper perhaps than even that which has been made evident thus far.

With this being the case, and having come to so great an impass, we are summarily forced to "agree to disagree" on this matter as it is obvious, to me at least, that you have unadmittedly made yourself willfully blind to what my own eyes can clearly, and plainly see, so obvious are the references. As I have already stated on numerous occasions, I neither regard the bible as a solid source of reference where science is concerned, nor do I deny what I perceive and understand to be scientific truths within it's pages, and I would hope that you do not misconstrue my position regarding this matter.

Cheers


BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by sidelined, posted 06-19-2004 2:48 AM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by AdminAsgara, posted 06-20-2004 11:24 PM DarkStar has not yet responded
 Message 96 by sidelined, posted 06-21-2004 2:35 AM DarkStar has responded

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 90 of 138 (116945)
06-20-2004 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by DarkStar
06-20-2004 10:55 PM


Re: Sidelined Unconvinced of his Strawman Argument but a Rose by Any Other Name..........
Hi DarkStar,

I have been away lately and have just now seen your posts.

I am going to strongly suggest that you adhere to the normal formating here. Others have been complaining about your changes and the difficulty they pose in following your posts. I agree.


AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by DarkStar, posted 06-20-2004 10:55 PM DarkStar has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019