Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[bhsmte]

Lot of preaching, for a science thread.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

And lots of scoffing, by an admitted non scientist. You did say, you are not a scientist.

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Did I miss a forum rule?

Does one need to be a professional scientist, to post in the science forum?

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

One does not. There is a forum rule or should be about scoffing.

LOVE,

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I believe that much of the bible is literally poetic. Any other language would have been confusing at the time.

But the thing about the measurements of the laver demonstrating pi incorrectly isn't valid. All that is needed is to carefully read the account. (This is a challenge to any who doubt God's math ability.)

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

One does not. There is a forum rule or should be about scoffing.

LOVE,

Please show me where I have broken any forum rules.

And please, be specific.

Thank you.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

There is a forum rule or SHOULD be.

You spoke about issues to you, with people named Joshua in their names.

The essence was a scoff at people with the name of Joshua.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Anyone else notice a trend with posters that have "joshua" in their handle?

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

There is a forum rule or SHOULD be.

You spoke about issues to you, with people named Joshua in their names.

The essence was a scoff at people with the name of Joshua.

LOVE,

I asked if people noticed a trend, nothing more, nothing less.

Show me how this violates any forum rules.

 

[katerinah1947]

I asked if people noticed a trend, nothing more, nothing less.

Show me how this violates any forum rules.

Hi,

No. I have answered enough of your questions.

Please let the original poster have his thread back.

We are supposed to comment on content, not the person, or persons.

Implying their might be an issue, is tantamount to an accusation.

You implied to me, that there is a problem with people called Joshua.

If to no one else, that implication, is there for me.

Are you incapable of seeing that your statement can be taken in a very negative way?

Can we please give this thread back to the OP?

Please.

LOVE,

 

[keith99]

Is it only when they are reading the Bible that atheists are unable to recognise figures of speech? It certainly seems to be so.

No. But if dealing with a Fundie who claims that every single verse of Scripture is to be taken literally Far more often it is Christians who fail to see poetic language, at least when a literal interpretation of Scripture gives the result they want to read in to Scripture.

 

[keith99]

If there is one thing militant atheists and creationists agree on, it is that the Bible is a science text book. The only difference between them is that the former try to argue that it is full of errors, and the latter that it contains no errors.

They are both operating upon a fundamentally flawed premise.

Uh no. Atheists refute that position by showing the gross errors when Scripture is taken that way. You seem to want Atheists to include a laundry list of disclaimers every time they speak. One refutes the position taken in a discussion, one does not address every possible position that could be taken.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Oh, so you know which passages are to be taken literally, and which are meant to be figures of speech? Maybe you could help out the OP; he seems to think that "hanging the earth upon nothing" is not a figure of speech. It seems trivially easy to just shrug everything off as just a figure of speech when it's convenient, and by doing so only count the hits, and ignore the misses. That doesn't sound reasonable.

Also, let's not forget the one that I think we can all agree is not a figure of speech: the global flood that supposedly happened some 4,000 years ago. The global flood that runs completely contrary to all available evidence.

The global flood actually has quite a bit of evidence. Now, I could post many different examples, which would lead to us arguing over whether or not it supports a flood, or an ice age, or what have you, but it would be wrong to state that there is no evidence for a flood. In fact, there is plenty of evidence, just not many people who like to interpret scientific facts in a way that supports the Bible.

 

[The Cadet]

The global flood actually has quite a bit of evidence. Now, I could post many different examples, which would lead to us arguing over whether or not it supports a flood, or an ice age, or what have you, but it would be wrong to state that there is no evidence for a flood. In fact, there is plenty of evidence, just not many people who like to interpret scientific facts in a way that supports the Bible.

What evidence would a major flood event leave behind? Well, thanks to observing countless such events, we know what it would look like in the fossil record. And when we look back through the fossil record, at no point do we find a global flood deposit layer. This is something we absolutely would expect if there was a global flood event. Then there's the issue of genetic bottlenecks in animals, which either push the flood back to far before 4,000 years ago or allow for large populations of animals to survive outside of the arch. Then there's the issue that we're talking about every species of land animal fitting on a boat, and past a certain point I just feel downright silly entertaining the arguments. The flood is a fairy tale, more befitting of a primitive society's creation mythos than actual science. The idea that it is even remotely supportable by the evidence is simply wrong.

 

[keith99]

The global flood actually has quite a bit of evidence. Now, I could post many different examples, which would lead to us arguing over whether or not it supports a flood, or an ice age, or what have you, but it would be wrong to state that there is no evidence for a flood. In fact, there is plenty of evidence, just not many people who like to interpret scientific facts in a way that supports the Bible.

In other words not many people who are willing to twist the truth to conform to the Bible.

Modern Geology has roots that include actively looking for evidence of a world wide flood, honest men who had hoped to find such evidence did not.

 

[dad]

Anyone else notice a trend with posters that have "joshua" in their handle?

No.

 

[dad]

What evidence would a major flood event leave behind? Well, thanks to observing countless such events, we know what it would look like in the fossil record.

False. Since it seems that most life on earth did not fossilize in the former state, we would expect nothing like this.

And when we look back through the fossil record, at no point do we find a global flood deposit layer. This is something we absolutely would expect if there was a global flood event.

False. If the flood were in the former state and somewhere around the KT layer or thereabouts, we would not expect the sort of flood layer you envision.

Then there's the issue of genetic bottlenecks in animals, which either push the flood back to far before 4,000 years ago or allow for large populations of animals to survive outside of the arch.

False. The way we determine bottlenecks is from present day DNA, no? If not then refresh my memory. If so, then we can forget that reaching into the former times, since we do not know present state DNA existed persay then.

Then there's the issue that we're talking about every species of land animal fitting on a boat, and past a certain point I just feel downright silly entertaining the arguments.

No sweat. Only the kids were there. In addition God called them there so they knew to behave accordingly.

So called science is a fairy tale and pretending it knows about the days of Noah is a myth.

 

[The Cadet]

False. Since it seems that most life on earth did not fossilize in the former state, we would expect nothing like this.

Why not? This doesn't follow. If there was a global flood, regardless of anything else, we would expect to find a layer in the geologic column that contains the deposited detritus and whatnot from the flood. It's a year-long flood, it's not like we would have a hard time finding what we're looking for. We can find evidence of floods that were far less violent, widespread, and long-lasting in the geologic column today; why in the world shouldn't we be able to find such a recent, global, violent, long-lasting flood event?

Or are you arguing that god magicked this layer of silt away somehow?

 

[Wgw]

Just a note, chaps; it is known the OP has been copy-pasting polemics from official J/W sources. So in my opinion, a response might well be wasted breath.

 

[keith99]

Why not? This doesn't follow. If there was a global flood, regardless of anything else, we would expect to find a layer in the geologic column that contains the deposited detritus and whatnot from the flood. It's a year-long flood, it's not like we would have a hard time finding what we're looking for. We can find evidence of floods that were far less violent, widespread, and long-lasting in the geologic column today; why in the world shouldn't we be able to find such a recent, global, violent, long-lasting flood event?

Or are you arguing that god magicked this layer of silt away somehow?

We also have deposits that last for thousands of years without interruption. Nice consistent deposits in lakes and places like the Gulf of Mexico. There should be a significant interruption. There is not.