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. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,992
    Ratings:
    +9,460
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Not a defensive mode at all, but if anything an "I can't bring myself to care what another yokel thinks-mode"

    Nope. They simply recognize something you refuse to do: Evolution is not dependent on what form origins take. It ain't important! And having been so familiar with evolutionists, as your statements here suggest, why hasn't this sunk in yet? But on second thought . . . my suspicion is that you're well aware of the disjunction between origins and evolution, and are simply out trolling.

    As would be the responses of all those who hold a common position on an issue.

    Is it truly surprising that everyone is on the same page? Really? If not why bring it up?

    If it isn't a troll I'll be surprised.


    .
     
    #121 Skwim, May 16, 2019
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  2. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    227
    Ratings:
    +44
    Gee.....all that jazz.....just because of this thread! :D
    Oh well....that's your opinion. You're entitled to it.

    Whatever. :shrug:
     
  3. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    39,425
    Ratings:
    +3,014
    allow me.....

    Adam is a CHOSEN son of God
    placed in a petri dish......ideal living conditions.....the garden

    given a deep sleep....anesthesia
    a rib removed.....surgery
    the rib increased to full stature....cloning
    genetic alteration to a female form

    a test …..and they passed

    release into the environment

    and the experiment continues on a large scale
     
  4. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,992
    Ratings:
    +9,460
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Obviously I've hit the nail on the head.

    [​IMG]

    .
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    7,653
    Ratings:
    +532
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    It strikes no chord with funda-Darwinists because they are angry (against the tiny minority of people who stand up to their belligerence).
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +637
    Religion:
    nature
    You are falling into the trap of word interpretation. This has lead many people to make incorrect conclusions. Interpretation of words from particularly ancient text are subject to translation problems as well as changes in the meaning of words. What is worse is when people chose their own interpretation to justify their conclusions by giving the words new meanings. This is further complicated in many of the ancient writings especially about myths were oral traditions subject to considerable variation before committed to writing subject to more variations when copied or even intentional changes over time. The oldest original presentation of Genesis in writing is not very old compared to the length that the myth has existed.
    Your use of the words to compare to current scientific knowledge is imaginative at best.
     
  7. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,081
    Ratings:
    +5,116
    Religion:
    None
    I've long been drawn to the idea that the boar was once worshiped, being one of the few animals that could kill a man in that part of the world, and that that is the origin of the prohibition of pork.

    Early in human history, there would be a time before the idea of intelligence existed, man's great advantage over the beasts that he was still unaware that he possessed. So, he saw himself as inferior to the animals with skills he feared or respected, and showed deference to these animals, perhaps including never killing one for fear of reprisal.

    The boar may have been viewed as a god once, and the prohibition against eating one outlived the period of animal gods, just as some Amerind tribes worshiped the bear, the wolf, and the crow undoubtedly out of respect for their natural skills including their abilities to kill human beings.

    But eventually, man came to understand what intelligence was, that he had more of it than the beasts, and that this was the supreme skill. That may be when theriomorphic gods (animal form) began morphing into therioanthropic forms (half man-half beast like Horus and Pan) and then finally into anthropomorphic gods like the Greek and Viking pantheons. That to me is the evidence that the beasts were once exalted above man until it was understood that we had the intelligence to dominate them.

    I imagine the ancient Hebrews underwent a process like this, going one step further and combining the gods into one, monotheism, but maintaining some traditions for no reason that anybody could remember any longer, and calling it a command from God for no known reason.

    Have you ever heard of long pig?

    I think his purpose is the same as any other creationist's - to promote his religious beliefs. Since forum rules prohibit overt proselytization, and because there are no good arguments for creationism better than an incredulity fallacy to be made anyway, that perforce takes the form of an attack on the science that contradicts his religious beliefs, often in the form of ridicule, as you noted.

    Like macroevolution.

    You know what's not a science book? A telephone directory. Also, a dictionary. How many scientific claims have you cited from scripture already? You won't find scientific claims in these other books, because they're not science books. The Bible is not just a science book - it is also a history book, a book of myths, a book of poetry, and a guide to living - but it does attempt to explain how the world came to be and how to do things like treat leprosy - the kinds of things that science books do.

    The problem is that its method is mythopoeisis, not empiricism, so unlike modern science, the Bible's science is inaccurate and therefore not useful.

    There you go - an attempt at science from scripture.

    Creationist apologetics is nothing but knee-jerk reactions from a small toolkit of PRATTs - invisible barriers to evolution, evolutionary science is in crisis, pretending to care about and understanding science, the creationist just can see how it could happen without help, Haeckel's drawings, Darwin was a racist, quote mining, or some invented statistic for the probability of life forming spontaneously, or some misunderstanding of Pasteur's work..

    Saying that the Bible is not a science book is a knee-jerk comment seen repeatedly, often just before treating it as a science book as you are doing here.

    You're tacitly conceding that science is the arbiter of truth about how the world works - not scripture. If you treated the Bible as the authority, you would be telling us how much of what is in the Bible science got wrong rather than how much the Bible writers got right.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  8. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,081
    Ratings:
    +5,116
    Religion:
    None
    Evolution is a fact. Do your children look the same as you and their mother? Do you look different than your father? That's evolution over three generations right there. It's occurrence is a fact. You can see it occurring.

    And the theory of evolution, which we don't call fact or proven - just empirically confirmed - explains the mechanism of evolution.

    The theory has no holes. I've already explained to you elsewhere that there is no crisis in evolutionary science. The theory sits on a solid foundation of evidence, practical application, and the failure to falsify it after over 150 years. There remains much work to do elucidating the specific pathways and timelines that led to the life we find today, but that's not a problem with the theory, and not solving those problems won't make evolution less likely.

    That's incorrect as you have been told (stars and light existed for billions of years before the earth, for example), but once again, an attempt at science by the Bible's writers.

    The better point is how much it got wrong. How could it not get some things right? Doesn't every creation myth.

    But here you are giving the nod to science again as the gold standard for truth about reality.

    You can't help but see science in scripture, but say it's not a science book. What is a science book if not a book with science in it?

    Incidentally, your list is an example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, in which one tries to show that two very different things are similar by emphasizing the similarities while downplaying or ignoring the differences leading to a false conclusion. You left out all that the Bible got wrong, such as woman coming from a rib, and most of what science has said that the Bible writers failed to mention, such as symmetry breaking and the inflationary epoch.

    An indefinite term with no precise meaning.

    And yet another nod to science as the final word. And frankly, why read such a book? I won't even finish reading a post if I can't tell what its author means in the first sentence or two, and certainly if I discover its poetry or figures of speech rather than substantial.

    No, what he is saying is that there are certain common tells among creationists that reveal how little science they know as they are critiquing it. Failing to distinguish between abiogenesis and biological evolution instantly relegates the creationist to the category of not qualified to be discussing science authoritatively. I've mentioned ethos to you before, a term that refers to a speaker or writer's audience's perception of him, including if he is competent to present his argument.

    Other common tells (or shibboleths, if you like fancy words) include saying that evolution is not a fact, or the theory of evolution is only a theory, or is in crisis.


    Jump forward to a time when civilization had evolved to where there was a priesthood and a temple, perhaps several hours from one's home. The tithe was invented to support the priesthood so that it could remain at the temple rather than work the fields. They wanted the people to come to them, and that probably meant taking a day off from working, an idea formerly considered immoral. How to change that? Make it immoral to work on that day. Create a story in which a god works for six days and then rests for a day. Make it a commandment. Put it in there with the top ten.

    One more comment. Have you ever noticed that of the day, week, month, and year, one is artificial - the week. The others all represent natural celestial cycles. I think that the week was created for this purpose.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,081
    Ratings:
    +5,116
    Religion:
    None
    Are you suggesting that animals have changed since their creation in a way that prevents us from knowing what they looked like when created? Is there a name for such a process - animals changing in appearance by so much that the ancestors are not recognizable as the same "kind" any longer?

    You're confusing simple and simplistic. Simplistic implies oversimplification to the point of detriment, that is, a simplistic view of a complex situation not properly understood because of excessive simplification. Abstinence-only sex education is ineffective because it takes an excessively simplistic view of human nature. It's too simple.

    Simple is usually considered a positive description, as with having a simple solution, giving a simple yes or no answer, or finding a simple recipe.
    The origin of life and the evolution of life are two different subjects, one a nascent hypothesis about chemical evolution on prebiotic earth, the other a robust scientific theory about a subsequent process still occurring today, biological evolution, which had to wait for life to begin before it could evolve.

    Books on the subjects are separate. The scientists investigating them are different kinds of scientists doing different work. They are funded separately.

    As indicated, the arguments from creationists are usually one or two of a small handful of PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times), and their refutations ought to look pretty much alike if they are right. How many different responses were you expecting to your claim that evolution is not a fact? Everyone who answers that will tell you same thing. Their answers may be more or less complete, but they will not conflict.

    We are. Universities, textbooks, pop science books, and trusted Internet sources such as TalkOrigins.com.

    As I have pointed out, science is your authority, too. It's your go-to source for answers about reality.

    This is an example of the mythology being reinterpreted to conform with the science. The Bible is pretty clear that its day is the time it takes the earth to rotate once about its axis, you know, the time between sunsets, which includes one morning and one evening. There's was no reason to believe otherwise until science showed us that billions of years preceded the advent of the sun, the earth, and life on earth including humanity.

    Just consider the Sabbath, the seventh day. How long is the day called the Sabbath? Well, the six that preceded it, the so-called days of creation, were part of the same week.

    I have a hypothesis about the advent of the Sabbath and the seven-day week similar to the one I offered about the prohibition against eating pork. Once again, let your imagination take you back to before the rise of organized religion and a full time priesthood. Presumably, every able-bodied person was expected to work every day, it likely being considered immoral to have idle hands. One day was the same as the next, and none of the days needed names. I hear that farming is like that. The animals need to be milked and fed every day.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    227
    Ratings:
    +44
    Okay....back to the topic. Let's do a recap:


    Many scientists believe in the harmony of the Bible and science. The National Academy of Sciences had even singled out theistic evolution - the belief that God created the universe and all the processes that makes evolution possible - as a belief that isn't in disagreement with science.

    Many scientists are also proponents of the Day-Age theories - the belief that the seven days of Creation are not literally 7 days - but each day is equivalent to thousands or even millions of years. That's how they reconcile the Book of Genesis with science.


    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 an evolutionist's shoes.
    To me, CUMULATIVELY - they give strong evidence that the Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation. Here are what were given so far:

    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

    Genesis 1
    26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”


    That is pretty much consistent with reality, and can be observed even today.
     
  11. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    227
    Ratings:
    +44
    THE HUMAN BODY


    Genesis 2
    7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.




    Lo, and behold. Bang-on again!

    Science had discovered that the human body is actually made up of elements and minerals that are found in dirt (earth's crust).




    The Chemistry of Life: The Human Body


    We are what we eat!
    We are made of various minerals, vitamins, and elements found in the dirt of the earth.
    Look at the list of mineral supplements you need for good health!



    The Chemistry of Life: The Human Body
     
  12. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    227
    Ratings:
    +44
    No. I'm saying there were created animals. Do you think the chihuahua was a created "original?"




    Nope, I'm not confusing anything!
    There is nothing detrimental to how the article explained the "kinds" in the Bible. It was a very simple explanation - that's all it needs!

    Like I said - some folks seem to think that something has to be complicated for it to sound right.

    And.........we're not talking about abstinence-only sex education!



    And....some explanations can be simple. Who sez there's any rule against that?



    Two different subjects that are in a way connected! You can't say life just suddenly began evolving and then you tell me I can't bring up where the starting point is! Do you understand why i say they're connected in a way - even though they're separate subjects? Lol!

    Your evolution has to have a starting point!




    Science isn't the only authority!
    Science is quite limited to what is observed and analyze.
    Even the National Academy of Sciences will tell you that! You don't believe me? here:


    WMAP Site FAQs





    Nope. Some people automatically call what they don't understand, "myths."

    But as stated by the National Academy of Sciences, the supernatural extend beyond science's realm (so far. Who knows maybe there'll be a breakthrough!) ........

    .........therefore, outright automatical dismissal of the supernatural as "myth," is just simply based on......... ignorance.
     
  13. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    227
    Ratings:
    +44
    To you, it may be a fact. But macro-evolution - common descent - is not.

    Sorry....but your explanation isn't just good enough. We're into a serious discussion/debate - personal opinions don't really count.
     
  14. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    227
    Ratings:
    +44
    Then, that means you've misunderstood.

    Like I've said, the Bible is filled with poetry, parables, analogies, figures of speech....therefore, we can't be certain which can be taken literally or not.


    EH? Hahahahaha
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. John53

    John53 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2017
    Messages:
    430
    Ratings:
    +441
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Oh well done! A honest response without a stupid link, I can live with that answer. Why you didn't say that in the first place is a little frustrating but I'll get over it.

    No thanks, wasted my time reading it the 1st time. It's a long winded way of them saying they have no clue.

    Nothing because you don't understand either, which is fair enough. Trying to understand the meaning of words used thousands of years ago and translated from other languages is a difficult if not impossible task.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,073
    Ratings:
    +2,180
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    It would take some explaining if livings things were NOT made of the elements we find on the Earth.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,073
    Ratings:
    +2,180
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Hold that thought: we cannot be certain what in the bible to take literally and what to take as figurative.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +637
    Religion:
    nature
    Please help me understand how mankind ruled over the dinosaurs. I really want to know.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  19. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    227
    Ratings:
    +44

    Yes. I'm holding. [​IMG]

    Figures of speech like this one:

    Matthew 18:9
    And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.



    Lol. Do you see a lot of eye-less Christians fumbling around, because they did just that?


    So, if we treat Matthew 18:9 "pluck your eye out," as a figure of speech - why shouldn't we consider other statements mere poetry like the "stretching heavens?"
    Of course, until science discovered that the universe is stretching - why would anyone think it isn't simply poetic or a figure of speech?

    When science discovered the universe is stretching - of course, we look at those verses describing the stretching heavens in a new light. It is a literal description.
     
    #139 tosca1, May 16, 2019
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
  20. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    3,115
    Ratings:
    +2,181
    Religion:
    Methodist
    Creationists use the example of dogs, wolves, coyotes and dingoes to illustrate kind. These can interbreed and creationists call them dog kind. However, there are species of dog that cannot interbreed with these and they are still dogs. Just of another genus. So, kind could be species in the first instance and genus in the second. It has no valid scientific meaning and its application makes it useless, except in the most general, colloquial application. When the text of Genesis says, after their kind, no real, overall understanding can be gained from what that means, since it could mean anything from variety, breed, species, genus, family, order, class, or anything else.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...