Funny thing about science is it continues to back up the Bible

you got my hopes up. I thought you had some evidence. Do you have a particular instance in mind?

The only thing I can think of is that certain interpretations of Genesis go hand and hand with the Big Bang.

Bible cosmology is kinda inconclusive because the Hebrew is ambiguous, but its possible that its accurate.

Other than that, I can't think of anything, and even those two aren't solid.
 
Make a claim, neglect to evidence it, solicit discussion, let it unfold for a bit and then finally drop what you think are going to be some bombshells after what you hope will be a few instances of outright dismissal, all in an attempt to generate some credibility from the interplay between said dismissals and whatever validity you think your evidence actually has.

Or maybe I'm just projecting more strategic potential on to you than is warranted.

In any case, the correct way to present a claim is indeed to evidence it from the outset.
 
I disagree. Now please post your evidence for the contrary position, that we might savage it.

If you ignore the passages that are clearly wrong or dismiss them as figurative (like the Sun standing still in the sky or equating bats with birds) or poetic, and then torture a few others to fit the passage into modern scientific theories, then you can make a case for the Bible being in line with science.

That is the same game people play when they want to see Nostradamus's quatrains as prophetic, or claim that the horoscope in the daily newspaper came true AGAIN!

Remember you will need to explain a global flood of the entire planet earth and a boat big enough to house multiples (sometimes more than two) of every one of the millions of species of terrestrial animals that exist (plus how these species maintained genetic diversity after the fact and why there are no fossilized remains of kangaroos outside of Australia. (After all, kangaroos had to be on the ark, and it would have taken them a long time to migrate from Australia to the boat, and then back... At the same time the Flood story underestimates how hard it is for saltwater fish to live in diluted water, and for freshwater fish to live in brackish water. Many fish would have died if the whole world flooded. For that matter, where did all that water come from, or go? It didn't just evaporate and hang in the air, or else the clouds would have blocked the Sun and we have had the return of Snowball Earth). You also need to explain the resurrection of the dead, and how to scientifically transform water into wine.

There's nothing wrong with reading the Bible as a book of spiritual truths, or in assuming that the laws of nature were suspended in some way or other at the times the stories told in the Bible occurred. Those at least make sense, but claiming that the Bible and the stories in it, as written, can be explained in normal scientific terms without the addition of "and then a miracle happened" to gloss over the scientifically implausible bits? I don't agree.
 
Last edited:
AlexG said:
In what way?
Click to expand...
1st Plague. River ran red LIKE blood. But there is a common algae plume called the Red Tide. This makes the river, or any water, look red like blood. Why did this happen? The ash changes the PH level of the river allowing the algae to bloom.

2nd Plague. Frogs. The algae is killing fish. Fish eat frog eggs. No fish, record number of frogs. Frogs can't live in polluted water and so leave the river.

3rd and 4th Plague. Lice and flies. The translation can actually be lice, fleas, gnats, or midges. But you have riverfull of dead fish, and now dead frogs. This brings the insects of the 3rd and 4th Plague.

5th Plague. Pestilence. Flies, dead frogs, dead fish, easy enough no?

6th Plague. Boils. Certain types of flies that bite can leave behind boils. The bites get infected, they turn in to boils.

7th Plague. Fire and Hail. Ash in the air causes a mixture of ash and water. The ash, very high in the air, causes the water to freeze so when it falls it is hail and not rain. The fire? I saw this amazing picture in Nat. Geo. of a volcanic eruption. There was red lightning. It was amazing to see bright red lightning. Why is it red? Chemicals in the ash makes red lightning. So fire in the sky, and hail.

8th Plague. Locusts. Locusts come about when the ground is very damp. They bury their eggs in the sand about 4-6 inches. After record amount of hail the ground would be very wet allowing the locusts to form.

9th Plague. Darkness. Ash in the air. After am eruption in 1815 there was darkness for 600 kilometers. After Krakatoa it was dark for even farther for days.

10th The volcano releases gasses that stay low to the ground. i think its carbon, {been awhile since my pastor/dad told me about this discovery}. the first borns of the egyptions slept on a bed lower to the ground then the other people. the jews also slept in beds higher then the egyptions.

here is a link talking about the volcanic gas. http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Nyos.html

like i said its still a miracle because God told mosses what was going to happen before anyone could possibly know and even in the order it would happen.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
Funny thing about science is it continues to back up the Bible

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I don't think that the writers of the Bible had any interest in science. Of course, science didn't really exist yet in their time and place.

The Bible-writers' interests were more in the moral sphere, I guess, and in thing like the Hebrews' special status and ritual purity.

The first few chapters of Genesis do deal with religious cosmology, but they seem to mostly be interested in establishing the Hebrew's God as the central figure in creation. The details of creation don't seem to bear much resemblance at all to current scientific understanding of the early earth and the evolution of life.

So my impression of the Bible is exactly the opposite of yours. It seems to me that if the Bible writers really were plugged into a supernatural source of information, especially one that's supposed to be omniscient, then they would have foreshadowed subsequent scientific discovery a lot more closely than they did.

That's a important reason why I don't think that the Bible contains revealed supernatural content. It's just too crude, too much a product of its ancient time and place. It has far more simularities to other ancient texts of its period than it does to modern scientific discoveries. Biblical morality seems awfully crude, brutal and alien too, when compared with our modern sensibilities.

It's just not something that I picture coming from a god...
 
Dywyddyr said:
Wrong.


It can be, but in general, no.
Click to expand...

So are you telling me that I don't have the natural instinct to eat a cow? Or fall in love with the most beautiful girl in the world? Yea yea beauty doesn't = love, you have no idea what I mean. Quote this. The day I was born.. if you put a pealed banana, and a bowl of nails in front of me I would instinctually eat the food. If I were a cave man and I came across a cave lady who was like minded to me, and I found sexual arousing I would instinctually try and court her.
 
Knowledge91 said:
So are you telling me that I don't have the natural instinct to eat a cow? Or fall in love with the most beautiful girl in the world?
Click to expand...
Oh dear. Still can't read?

The day I was born.. if you put a pealed banana, and a bowl of nails in front of me I would instinctually eat the food. If I were a cave man and I came across a cave lady who was like minded to me, and I found sexual arousing I would instinctually try and court her.
Click to expand...
Would you instinctivelt know which foods were poisonous and which weren't? Would you instinctively know which situations were dangerous and which weren't?

Because you're slow at picking things up I'll give you the answer: no. It has taken generations and generations of humans to discover and pass on these things. And we don't have all of them sorted out yet.
 
The day I was born.. if you put a pealed banana, and a bowl of nails in front of me I would instinctually eat the food.
Click to expand...

Ever see a baby pick up whatever is in reach and put it in their mouth? They don't care if it's food or not.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Oh dear. Still can't read?


Would you instinctivelt know which foods were poisonous and which weren't? Would you instinctively know which situations were dangerous and which weren't?

Because you're slow at picking things up I'll give you the answer: no. It has taken generations and generations of humans to discover and pass on these things. And we don't have all of them sorted out yet.
Click to expand...

No, but I would naturally distinguish food from not food. And yes, a spider is "food." If it kills me it kills me, but thats why we have are elder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top