1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Science In The Bible

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by tosca1, May 15, 2019.

  1. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    This is about the Bible - and the compatibility with science that some day-age theories scientists claim about the Bible. I can see where they're coming from.

    I'm not going to get into the alleged derivations from Babylonians/Sumerian writings here since that will derail this topic, and that subject would make for another interesting thread.
    Let's discuss that, if you wish. Create the thread for it.
    Please, alert me if you do.
     
    #181 tosca1, May 17, 2019
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
  2. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    No....don' set it aside. Explain how and why you say my logic needs some work.

    There's nothing wrong with my logic.

    If there are any evidences that exist, they will exist regardless of what a person believes.
    They may not have found the evidence (hence the "lack" for it).....but that's not saying the evidence does not exists.

    It's your logic though that needs some works.
    Science does not deal with the supernatural - it can only deal with what can be observed and analyzed.
    That's been clearly explained by the NAS!
    Did you, or did you not read it?

    So - your so-called "lack" of supernatural evidence from science, is not a logical question.
     
    #182 tosca1, May 17, 2019
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
  3. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,015
    Ratings:
    +6,635
    Religion:
    None
    No, it is simplistic - overly simplified. "Kinds" has no specific meaning, and therefore claims made about them refer to nothing in particular. Define the term simply and specifically - not simplistically - and we can then begin to debate about kinds.

    Some people think that writing should be clear and thorough to be helpful. You are drawn to verbal caricatures, the verbal equivalent of a stick man drawing serving as a composite police drawing. If it's over-simple to the point that it is no longer effective at its intended purpose, it's simplistic.

    We were talking about the difference between simple and simplistic. Abstinence-only sex education was an apt example of simplistic. It's too simplified, so much so that it routinely fails.

    Yes, once life was present, it immediately began evolving. That was the starting point.

    Yes, I think I know why you might say that. They are chemical and biological evolution respectively, preceded my material evolution and followed by psychological and cultural evolution. They can all be discussed separately

    It's the only authority on the workings of reality, which is why it has been your authority on such matters on this thread. I've seen you present biblical scripture that can remotely be used to falsely imply that the Bible writers were prescient or were channeling a divine presence, and then say that the Bible is right in a handful of places because science says so.

    So why go to the Bible at all? Just go to science, indifferent to where scripture agrees or does not.

    And where the two part ways, as you have tacitly agreed, it it is science and not scripture that is authoritative

    Also, you conceded this point by failing to address this same comment earlier - my comments stating that if you considered scripture the authority, then where science and scripture parted ways, you would be telling us how much science got wrong. Where's God's day of rest in science? The scientists got that wrong.

    But you don't do that, and that is all anyone needs to know about which resource you consider the arbiter of truth where they contradict one another.

    No. There is nothing known to exist that is beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. Think about why that must be true if we have a way to know that something exists. It means that it has already touched us, revealing a causal connection between it and us. That's the part science investigates.

    Nope. It's based on the well-founded principles that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that claims presented without sufficient support can be dismissed out of hand without refutation.

    You're a faith-based thinker encased in a confirmation bias that limits what you are able to understand. I have nothing to offer such a person but reason applied to evidence, and that is not how you decide what is true about the world. You use faith.

    If you didn't come to your present position via reason applied to evidence, you can't be budged from it by those, either.

    Sounds like a good reason not to turn to the Bible for advice or learning. Science can tell you what you need to know with no vague language like "kinds," and it will be information that can be put to use

    Yes, unless you decide to change your interpretation of Genesis every time science finds another departure of scripture from its own findings. For example, Christianity says that man was created in God's image, and with a soul that survives death. Evolution says that natural selection is a blind and undirected process with no purpose or intent (it is dysteleogical).

    Why would they? They have a better theory already that is independent of Genesis, and therefore have no reason to even think about Genesis at work, even the Christian ones.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,015
    Ratings:
    +6,635
    Religion:
    None
    I believe that man created his gods to account for what science reveals.

    I don't think you know what an argument from ignorance fallacy is. You seem to think that it is calling the arguer ignorant. It is not. It's one of creationist's favorite fallacies, up there with straw man, Texas sharpshooter (one of your favorites), special pleading, and incredulity arguments. The creationist is arguing that if you can't answer as yet unnaswered questions, that that fact somehow supports the creationist hypothesis.

    Everybody here arguing with you is confident that he or she is correct and you are wrong. We are not the insecure ones. We don't start threads to argue that creationism is wrong, angrily criticizing skeptics for not believing what they believe by faith, and then call the other side the angry ones or insecure ones. Why? Because,
    • "Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it." -Dan Barker
    Also, all of your laughing betrays your insecurity. This is the second stage of Christian apologetics and the beginning of decompensation, the first stage being a more confident demeanor when making the claims.

    The final stage is outright anger and hostility for not being believed. Your detractors all firmly rooted in the first stage - an unemotional mode

    There is no burden of proof with a faith-based thinker. Burden of proof only applies if one wants to be believed and is dealing with a person who uses reason applied to evidence to decide what is true about the world. If you have shut yourself off from that world, there is no way to reach you, and no duty to try.

    There have been no creationist contributions to science except outside of creationism. There isn't single paper that makes creationism more likely.

    No. You have to make your own arguments if you can. Orphan links, that is, links provided not in support of an argument, but in lieu of one, are typically ignored.

    Furthermore, I've lost count of how many times in the past I read and responded to such a link to the one posting it only to discover that whoever left the orphan link didn't actually read it himself, or read it but misunderstood it and now can't rebut the rebuttal to the piece, or the paragraphs I responded to on RF weren't the part of interest to the link poster.

    So please make your own argument, and support it with a link if need be, or expect your link to not be opened or your topic discussed. And don't bother with creationist sources. Their track record for honesty and accuracy is abysmal.

    If you can, find something from a mutually acceptable science education site that makes the same argument based on the same evidence. There is nothing that is true that is known only to Christians, so if something is accurately reported on a creation apologetics site, it will also be reported elsewhere on sites with no religious agenda. Link to those if they exist. If no such site exists, then there is no merit to the apologetics. Either way, no Answers in Genesis please

    Rather than just leaving orphan links and expecting others to research topics of more interest to you than them, present a capsule summary of the argument yourself. If there's something new or intriguing there, you might entice somebody to investigate further. I have no motivation to look at any orphan link - least of all, one from a creationist site.

    It wouldn't matter. As I said, creationists aren't credible or respected. Find another source, a mutually respected one, and make your own arguments (simple, not simplistic) or expect your post and link to go unopened.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  5. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    12,477
    Ratings:
    +8,386
    Religion:
    Christian (Methodist)
    That does sound like the story he was telling about being on other forums.

    How can there still be monkeys if the Monkees formed a band? She's a day/age believer and a homecoming queen.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  6. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    12,477
    Ratings:
    +8,386
    Religion:
    Christian (Methodist)
    It looks like he is trying to provide reasons for day/age belief in Genesis. I do not disagree that people have attempted to re-interpret Genesis, going so far as to stretch parts of it around science to the point it is unrecognizable, so that they can still believe in light of the evidence. That does not support the claim that what they use as evidence is valid. It seems a pretty thin stretch for some of the examples provided. Not that it really matters. Do people really need evidence to believe? No. If that were the case, there would be no belief. If they want to see these things as support of their re-interpretation, I have no objection, but they cannot establish those claims objectively or to a point where that conclusion is significant.

    I am not clear what this guy is trying to achieve. It all looks like a game to him, so that he can use emoticons and make flippant remarks. I have not seen anything that tells me he is serious or has much information that is not copied directly from links.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    12,477
    Ratings:
    +8,386
    Religion:
    Christian (Methodist)
    I had to read it twice to be sure, but that is what he said.
     
  8. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,573
    Ratings:
    +5,116
    Religion:
    Pi π
    But I have given you the reasons why I don’t think the Bible or specifically Genesis 2 is science, about Adam and Eve creation as well as the talking serpent as my examples.

    There are no evidence that you can *poof* dust into a living adult male human. Nor can you magically turn a rib into a living adult female human.

    And the talking serpent is nothing more than fable or myth.

    None of these meet reality, and there are no biological evidences that any of these 3 examples can happen.
     
    #188 gnostic, May 17, 2019
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  9. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,573
    Ratings:
    +5,116
    Religion:
    Pi π
    All you have approved in all your posts are some interpretations and reinterpretations, some heavy doses of your personal belief, and lastly, the leap of faith.

    There are nothing scientific about any of them.
     
  10. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,573
    Ratings:
    +5,116
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Ah...no.

    God didn’t create science.

    People, humans created science.

    Science is a tool, just like mathematics, of acquiring knowledge, to explain the phenomena that have observed, explained in the form of hypothesis, and testing the hypothesis, either through the test results of repeatable experimentations, or through finding more observable but independent evidences that can verify the original preliminary observation.

    The conclusion is only reach, based on the evidences, analysing the evidences, and to see if the evidences verify the hypothesis or refute the hypothesis.

    Explanations are not enough to be scientific. Maths alone or logic alone are not enough to be scientific.

    Science required empirical evidences, not just some explanations and some mathematical formulas or equations.

    That’s what distinguishes science from faith-based religions.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    Okay, back to the topic.
    Like I've said, the Bible is not meant to be a science book. However, I couldn't help but see the science in it - putting myself in a day-age evolutionist's shoes. And, it also drives the point that the Abrahamic God is the Creator - having intimate knowledge of His creation.

    When we have cumulative evidences such as these contained in a single Book - it's no longer logical to say that they're just "coincidences."

    What is CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES?

    the definition of cumulative evidence


    For those who missed the previously given evidences that show Biblical verses that are proven compatible with science findings, here's a recap to make it convenient for you:

    LIFE BEGINS IN WATER post #1
    ON GENDERS post #5
    THE SNAKE'S LIMBS post #6
    IN THE BEGINNING post #7
    PANGAEA and PANTHALASSA post #8
    MAN'S DOMINION OF ANIMALS post #130
    THE HUMAN BODY post #131
    PATHS OF THE SEAS #161


    --------------


    GOD STRETCHES THE HEAVENS


    "Heavens," is another word for the sky or the universe. It's what you see (and what you can no longer see), when you look up to the sky.

    Described by several authors from different timelines, take note that most of the verses use the present tense "stretches." How appropriate! The universe is still stretching!


    Job 9:8
    He alone stretches out the heavens _ and treads on the waves of the sea.


    Psalm 104:2
    The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; _ he stretches out the heavens like a tent


    Isaiah 40:22
    He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, _ and its people are like grasshoppers. _He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, _ and spreads them out like a tent to live in.


    Isaiah 42:5
    This is what God the LORD says the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it


    Isaiah 44:24
    This is what the LORD says your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself,


    Isaiah 45:12
    It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.


    Isaiah 48:13
    My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.


    Isaiah 51:13
    that you forget the LORD your Maker, who stretches out the heavens and who lays the foundations of the earth, that you live in constant terror every day because of the wrath of the oppressor, who is bent on destruction?


    Jeremiah 10:12
    But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.


    Jeremiah 51:15
    He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.


    Zechariah 12:1
    The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares: 2 I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem.




    What is the universe expanding into? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    Here is another evidence given, to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.


    THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE


    The Bible and the hydrologic cycle - creation.com


    Here is the science of it:



    Water basics: the hydrologic cycle - Canada.ca


     
  13. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    ATOMS


    Hebrews 11

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


    Practically everything in the physical world - from plant life, stars, animals, rocks, air, and water—is composed of building blocks known as atoms. You can't see atoms with the naked eye.

    In fact....

    How do we know that things are really made of atoms?

     
  14. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    11,891
    Ratings:
    +11,077
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    YET, another evidence is given to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.


    SPRINGS IN THE OCEAN


    Job 38
    16
    “Have you entered the springs of the sea?
    Or have you walked in search of the depths?


    Genesis 7
    11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.


    Proverbs 8
    28
    When He established the clouds above,
    When He strengthened the fountains of the deep,


    The Old Testament asserts that there are springs in the ocean.

    Springs of the Ocean


    That was in the Old Testament.

    >>>>>> FAST FORWARD TO 1977 >>>>>>>>>>>>





    Springs of the Ocean
     
  16. John53

    John53 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,182
    Ratings:
    +856
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Practically everything. So what isn't composed of atoms?
     
  17. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    11,891
    Ratings:
    +11,077
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Eh? Since when were stars composed of atoms?
     
  18. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,015
    Ratings:
    +6,635
    Religion:
    None
    Correct. It's not a coincidence that the Bible got so much wrong and so little right. It means the opposite of what you would like to assert.

    Consilience is the word you're looking for. The Bible fails to provide it, but the theory of evolution does..
     
  19. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52

    Yes. Consilience. Thanks for bringing that up. here is the defnition from Wikipedia:

    And? Lol. It's not the Bible who provides it - it's science!

    The Bible simply makes a declaration! Science is the one that provides the evidence!



    You folks still don't get it.
    Kindly read the following carefully and contemplate on it:


    The Bible is not meant to be a science book.

    The Bible makes declaration, gives statements and makes claims without meaning for it to be proven true by science or anyone.

    That's where FAITH comes in!

    It's either "take it or leave it."
    Examples of a declaration: " I AM GOD!" "IN THE BEGINNING..."


    BUT........BUT........


    ......It just so happens that science had proven, or confirmed some of the statements/claims in the Bible to be true or compatible with science!





    I'm using the right word with CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE for what claims/statements in the Bible have been proven/confirmed by science..........

    .................because that's what they are: evidence reinforcing each other, showing the credibility of the Bible.

    Even when it's not even meant to be proven - the Bible is racking points, science-wise!

    But I'd take consiliience, too. It further supports my point.
    It's a "back-up" for cumulative evidence. Thank you. [​IMG]
     
    #199 tosca1, May 19, 2019
    Last edited: May 19, 2019
  20. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    About 13.5 billions years ago!


    Here, this might help you:

    https://quatr.us/physics/stars-made-astronomy-physics.htm


    Now you understand why I'm ignoring most of your posts.
     
Loading...