Lucky Guesses???

[Walkntune]

Looking for some opinions on whether some of these are lucky guesses or why they may or may not be true?


Biblical evidences for Science

 

[Alceste]

Not even lucky guesses. It's the wholesale indulgence in a type of cognitive self trickery known as sampling bias.

In a book this size:

BIBLE STATISTICS:
Number of books in the Bible: 66
Chapters: 1,189
Verses: 31,101
Words: 783,137

...what do you think the odds are that you can find a phrase or a sentence, or even a whole bunch of phrases and sentences, that can affirm any preconceptions you might hold on any subject?

Pretty good, wouldn't you say? Especially when you are willing to apply a shamelessly broad interpretation to the verses in question.

My advice, go crack open your bible all by yourself, to any page, and without anybody telling you how to interpret what you find there, see if there are any miraculous proclamations that confirm to current scientific understanding of the nature of the universe. If you want to overcome the temptation of sampling bias, you could use a random number generator to give you page numbers to check.

If you're up for that, I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear what you come up with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Looking for some opinions on whether some of these are lucky guesses or why they may or may not be true?


Biblical evidences for Science

They're not lucky guesses. As Alceste pointed out, they're just a product of confirmation bias.

And if you want more detail than that, you're going to have to make an argument of your own instead of just posting a link.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

one word - eisegesis

 

[Walkntune]

OK I will start with this,

Rom.1:20 explains Atoms. Tells us that things seen are made from the invisible things. Heb.11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed (made to fit put in order) by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. The things which are seen are made of things not seen. This was not known until modern science discovered the invisible atoms. Invisible to the eye microscopic structures, The Encyclopedia describes it as a unit of matter, the smallest unit of an element, having all the characteristics of that element and consisting of a dense, central, positively charged nucleus surrounded by a system of electrons. The entire structure has an approximate diameter of 10-8 centimeter and characteristically remains undivided in chemical reactions except for limited removal, transfer, or exchange of certain electrons. Atoms cannot be seen using optical microscopes, they are much smaller than the wavelengths of visible light. Seen by imaging techniques such as electron microscopes, scanning tunneling microscopes, and atomic force microscopes,

Now of course we know it doesn't mention anything about quantum physics but how do you interpret the scriptures talking about things being created from invisible things?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Looking for some opinions on whether some of these are lucky guesses or why they may or may not be true?


Biblical evidences for Science

I'm sure someone on here will be happy to pick them apart, but for me most of them look overly-general and are clearly the result of people reading too much into very specific, ambiguous passages. While you wait for someone more versed on this subject than me to respond, perhaps you might want to look over these links:

Scientific errors in the bible - RationalWiki
HMP CH 28

 

[Alceste]

OK I will start with this,
Rom.1:20 bla bla bla bla some dumb fool's nonsense which is too painfully nonsensical to even bother reading. Heb.11:3 bla bla bla more of the same

Now of course we know it doesn't mention anything about quantum physics but how do you interpret the scriptures talking about things being created from invisible things?

Rom 1:20
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Heb 11:13
13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

I don't see anything scientific in there. You?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK I will start with this,

Rom.1:20 explains Atoms. Tells us that things seen are made from the invisible things.

Alceste just showed us this verse. How on Earth does a person read it and conclude that it "explains atoms", or even "that things seen are made from the invisible things"?

The verse says that it's talking about God's invisible nature, not the fact that you can't see some piece of matter because it's really small.

 

[Alceste]

Alceste just showed us this verse. How on Earth does a person read it and conclude that it "explains atoms", or even "that things seen are made from the invisible things"?

The verse says that it's talking about God's invisible nature, not the fact that you can't see some piece of matter because it's really small.

Actually, with three quarters of a million words to choose from it's rather astonishing they couldn't find anything better to read "atoms" into.

 

[Walkntune]

Rom 1:20
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Heb 11:13
13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

I don't see anything scientific in there. You?

Actually I see the same scientific creative force of nature that Tesla and Einstein saw in creation even though Einsten did not equate it with a personal God but the God of Spinoza.

Einstein nodded: he was a good listener. After a pause he said, "The cosmic man must be restored, the whole man who is made in the image and likeness of the arch-force, which you may call God.

What do you suppose this arch-force is Einstein is speaking of?He says we may call it God but for you who don't believe in God what is it?

OK I will start with this,
Rom.1:20 bla bla bla bla some dumb fool's nonsense which is too painfully nonsensical to even bother reading. Heb.11:3 bla bla bla more of the same

The dogma crap you wrote above was nothing more than an evasion of the question of me asking what was being implied.

 

[Walkntune]

You have the wrong scripture . Its Hebrews 11:3 not 13.
I was wondering where your scripture came from?

Hebrews 11:3 (New International Version)


3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

This still may only mean God created everything out of nothing so I will give you this one and pull another I find interesting.

 

[Alceste]

Actually I see the same scientific creative force of nature that Tesla and Einstein saw in creation even though Einsten did not equate it with a personal God but the God of Spinoza.

Why do you bother to put "scientific" in that sentence? Not everything a scientist thinks and says and does merits the adjective "scientific". Lots of scientists believe in God. But there are only a very few who claim that anything to do with their religious beliefs qualifies as "scientific". As SJ Gould says, religion and science are non-overlapping magesteria - they deal with different kinds of truth. Attempting to blur the line between the two devalues both.

What do you suppose this arch-force is Einstein is speaking of?He says we may call it God but for you who don't believe in God what is it?

Chi.

The dogma crap you wrote above was nothing more than an evasion of the question of me asking what was being implied.

You're asking how we explain the science in the Bible, but not giving us any of the verses you claim contain scientific observations. Instead you're giving us a bunch of bull from somebody else's website. I've only snipped out the bull and supplied the verses we're supposed to be discussing so that we can discuss them.

Seriously, I'm sure you can come up with your own biased sample and give us your own unsupportable interpretations without having to resort to simply copying and pasting somebody else's work. That's like sloppy thinking on steroids. I'm interested in THAT discussion. Not talking about nonsense on that web site.

 

[Alceste]

You have the wrong scripture . Its Hebrews 11:3 not 13.
I was wondering where your scripture came from?

Google. Bible gateway, usually. If I'm making an effort, I usually choose KJV as it appears to be the one the fundies call the definitive English Bible.
So here's 11:3

3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Still doesn't say anything about modern physics, especially if you look at it in context, which folks like the guy who wrote the website you're quoting never seem to be able to do.

1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

etc etc all about the topic of the power of faith, for the entire passage. Absolutely nothing to do with what the material things of the world are made of on a microscopic level.

 

[Walkntune]

Job 38:16 tells us there are springs in the sea (this was not known until 1913 when they found underground rivers)
Job 38:16 (King James Version)


16Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have the wrong scripture . Its Hebrews 11:3 not 13.
I was wondering where your scripture came from?

Hebrews 11:3 (New International Version)


3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

This still may only mean God created everything out of nothing so I will give you this one and pull another I find interesting.

Or it could mean that God's raw materials are invisible in the same way that angels or pixies are invisible.

 

[Alceste]

Or it could mean that God's raw materials are invisible in the same way that angels or pixies are invisible.

Could mean anything, really, but the whole of Hebrew 11 deals with the power of faith. In particular, the magical, supernatural power of faith.

 

[Walkntune]

Seriously, I'm sure you can come up with your own biased sample and give us your own unsupportable interpretations without having to resort to simply copying and pasting somebody else's work. That's like sloppy thinking on steroids. I'm interested in THAT discussion. Not talking about nonsense on that web site.

Maybe you can share some knowledge that you actually added to the scientific community and have not learned riding on someones coat tail.

 

[Alceste]

Job 38:16 tells us there are springs in the sea (this was not known until 1913 when they found underground rivers)
Job 38:16 (King James Version)


16Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

According to Job 38, the sea should also have doors, and the earth edges. Day also springs, as do buds. Snow and hail have treasures. Ice comes out of a womb. The world has a foundation and a cornerstone.

It's poetry. It's lovely. Possibly inspirational for some. But scientific? No. Science looks like this:

The induction of synthesis of the "female" yolk precursor protein vitellogenin (VTG) in male fish by estrogenic chemicals in the environment has been demonstrated in many recent reports. However, little is known about the organismal and biological significance of this phenomenon. To examine the relationship between VTG production in male fish and reproductive impairment, adult male medaka were exposed to 4-tert-octylphenol (OP), a known environmental estrogen, in concentrations ranging from 20 to 230 ppb for 21 days, under flow-through conditions. Following exposure, male fish were mated, in the absence of OP, with unexposed females.

Etc.

 

[Alceste]

Maybe you can share some knowledge that you actually added to the scientific community and have not learned riding on someones coat tail.

Being hostile to me doesn't make your argument any more convincing.

 

[Walkntune]

Being hostile to me doesn't make your argument any more convincing.

No hostility intended.I was asking for some opinions on something I was reading and only replying to your sarcasm. You said your remark as if you actually explore the world for yourself and do your own thinking instead of following along with what's already learned.