Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Tony Conrad]

False. When something is created that means it comes into existence and starts to be. After God created...it was there. Not before.

The periods are given in chapter one, and the day spoken of in chapter two is about those days. The mornings and evenings were also given.
False. You seems to assume all light originated with the sun. That is not fact, but speculation. The sun was created after plants.

I agree days are clearly laid out. The Jewish day follows in that their day starts in the evening and their rest is on the seventh day.

 

[dad]

The laws of physics have been tried and tried, and tried again, by various individuals and they always work the same way. Do you have any physical evidence to the contrary?

HAVE YOU TRIED THEM IN HEAVEN?? How about in the time of Adam...or do you even believe in all that? No one is even talking about the laws of physics now. Try to debate honestly, or at least tune in to what is being discussed.

Yet they've been measured repeatedly and always produce the same results.

See above.

As I've pointed out to you, it's not ultimately "God" that you believe since there are many different ways to interpret the Bible.

No. Not on basics. That is a cheap cop out.

You only actually seem to "believe" in your own inerrant ability to "correctly interpret" the bible, and you believe that you are "more enlightened" than the Pope in terms of that ability.

I think that the kid selling kool aid on the corner is more in touch with God than the pope.

 

[dad]

I agree days are clearly laid out. The Jewish day follows in that their day starts in the evening and their rest is on the seventh day.

Right. Also morning and evenings are not rocket science to figure out. Then we have plants being made a few days before the sun, so a day could not be too long.

When I hear someone try to pretend God really meant millions of years for a day that comes across as 'I don't reaLLY BELIEVE IN sCRIPTURE AT ALL, PROBABLY NOT IN THE GARDEN OF eDEN, A REAL aDAM, OR A FLOOD OR HARDLY ANYTHING ELSE IN THE BIBLE, IT IS ALL MYTH, POETRY, FABLES AND CUTE STORIES'

 

[SavedByGrace3]

It is true that fundamentalists can be as hopeless as atheists when it comes to crass literalness, but they are both pretty hopeless. I can certainly recognise figures of speech which are still in use today, such as ends of the Earth.

Atheists are fundamentalists just like many believers. They just have a different fundamental than believers. Their behavior is virtually identical. Truth is, everyone is a fundamentalist something. Everyone.

 

[durangodawood]

You do not observe a present state in the future. Really. You do not do so for the far past either. You lose.

Really?
We cannot deduce past events?
We cannot predict future events?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

The laws of physics have been tried and tried, and tried again, by various individuals and they always work the same way. Do you have any physical evidence to the contrary?



Yet they've been measured repeatedly and always produce the same results.



As I've pointed out to you, it's not ultimately "God" that you believe since there are many different ways to interpret the Bible. You only actually seem to "believe" in your own inerrant ability to "correctly interpret" the bible, and you believe that you are "more enlightened" than the Pope in terms of that ability.

Seeing as the pope just stated all religions should come together because they are all different paths to God, and multiple other blatant statements against the Bible, I believe a goat to be more enlightened than him.

 

[Loudmouth]

Easy Show us a sample. A layer. Now show the concentrations.

I can show you how the isotopes are measured.

A technician of the U.S. Geological Survey uses a mass spectrometer to determine the proportions of neodymium isotopes contained in a sample of igneous rock.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

So how does the proposed half life of an isotope effect the data that comes out of a mass spectrometer?

The belief system that assumes ratios all got here not because of creation or any former nature, but because of this present nature. Phooey.

If all of the evidence is consistent with a same state past, then it isn't a belief. It is a supported scientific conclusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you show the environment was the same in Genesis 1 as it is today?

We can show that the laws of nature have been the same for billions of years.

1. The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:
   
   
2. The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
   

• Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).
  
  
• The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).

1. Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).
   
   
2. Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).
   
   
3. The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).
4. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

The laws may indeed be consistent, but work differently under a different environment.

What conditions would cause zircons to include billions of years worth of Pb during their formation in a way that would be indistinguishable from radioactive decay? What conditions would force millions of years of Argon into tektites?

An airplane can be going forward at a speed of 100 mph.

If there is no headwind, its airspeed and ground speed are the same.

But in the face of a 50 m.p.h. headwind, it's different.

We don't date rocks by their airspeed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Atheists are fundamentalists just like many believers. They just have a different fundamental than believers. Their behavior is virtually identical. Truth is, everyone is a fundamentalist something. Everyone.

We don't invent fantasies as an excuse to ignore empirical data. We are quite different.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

We don't invent fantasies as an excuse to ignore empirical data. We are quite different.

This statement just makes you a true believer. I am sure other atheists are chiming in with
"YES, AMEN!"

 

[Loudmouth]

This statement just makes you a true believer.

"Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings."
http://www.lifescript.com/well-bein...ection_dealing_with_undesirable_emotions.aspx

 

[lasthero]

Seeing as the pope just stated all religions should come together because they are all different paths to God

Where did he say that?

 

[ScottA]

Yes, for although the Bible is not a science textbook, it is accurate when it mentions matters of science. Consider some examples showing that science and the Bible agree and that the Bible contains scientific facts that differed greatly from the beliefs of many people living at the time it was written.

• The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
  
  
• The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
  
  
• The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
  
  
• Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
  
  
• The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
  
  
• Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

Are there scientific errors in the Bible?
A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a “day.”—Genesis 2:4.

Myth: The Bible says that vegetation was created before the sun existed to support photosynthesis.—Genesis 1:11, 16.

Fact: The Bible shows that the sun, one of the stars that make up “the heavens,” was created before vegetation. (Genesis 1:1) Diffused light from the sun reached the earth’s surface during the first “day,” or epoch, of creation. As the atmosphere cleared, by the third “day” of creation, the light was strong enough to support photosynthesis. (Genesis 1:3-5,12, 13) Only later did the sun become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth.—Genesis 1:16.

Myth: The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Fact: Ecclesiastes 1:5 says: “The sun rises, and the sun sets; then it hurries back to the place where it rises again.” However, this statement merely describes the apparent motion of the sun as viewed from the earth. Even today, a person can use the words “sunrise” and “sunset,” yet he knows that the earth revolves around the sun.

Myth: The Bible says that the earth is flat.

Fact: The Bible uses the phrase “the ends of the earth” to mean “the most distant part of the earth”; this does not imply that the earth is flat or that it has an edge. (Acts 1:8; footnote) Likewise, the expression “the four corners of the earth” is a figure of speech referring to the entire surface of the earth; today a person might use the four points of the compass as a similar metaphor.—Isaiah 11:12; Luke 13:29.

Myth: The Bible says that the circumference of a circle is exactly three times its diameter, but the correct value is pi (π), or about 3.1416.

Fact: The measurements of “the Sea of cast metal” given at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicate that it had a diameter of 10 cubits and that “it took a measuring line 30 cubits long to encircle it.” These dimensions might have been merely the nearest round numbers. It is also possible that the circumference and diameter represented inner and outer measurements of the basin respectively.

Science agrees, but most scientists, do not agree.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Where did he say that?

http://www.infowars.com/one-world-r...-religions-are-meeting-god-in-different-ways/

 

[SavedByGrace3]

"Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings."
http://www.lifescript.com/well-bein...ection_dealing_with_undesirable_emotions.aspx

?
Are you hallucinating?
Is that all you have got?
Lost big time.

 

[Loudmouth]

?
Are you hallucinating?
Is that all you have got?
Lost big time.

You are projecting your own fundamentalism onto other people.

 

[Michael]

HAVE YOU TRIED THEM IN HEAVEN?? How about in the time of Adam...or do you even believe in all that? No one is even talking about the laws of physics now. Try to debate honestly, or at least tune in to what is being discussed.

If we were debating "honestly" dad, you would begin by acknowledging that there are multiple ways to interpret the book of Genesis, and your literal interpretation isn't necessarily "right" by default. Since you're not willing to do that, nor to look *outside of yourself* for any type of mediation possibility, this isn't really much of an "honest" conversation.

The laws of physics exist because we have discovered that nature behaves in a consistent manner over time. You're basically trying to ignore that point, and claim that somehow such "laws" aren't reliable past say 10,000 years ago. You're arbitrarily abandoning physics when it suits you, even though you rely upon physics to even post to this forum.

No. Not on basics. That is a cheap cop out.
I think that the kid selling kool aid on the corner is more in touch with God than the pope.

And yet you really have no way to demonstrate that your literal interpretation of the book of Genesis is correct. At least the Pope's position with respect to a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is also consistent with the laws of physics, whereas your literal interpretation is not.

 

[dad]

No

Really?
We cannot deduce past events?
We cannot predict future events?

No, you can't. You can playaround with current laws that God set up here for the time being.

 

[Loudmouth]

NoNo, you can't. You can playaround with current laws that God set up here for the time being.

Once again, your logic would require us to throw out all forensic evidence in court cases. Good job.

 

[Just Ben]

Science is man discovering what God has already established. Gods laws are the laws of nature. People van call it what they want. The world calls Gods justice "Karma". They say that its your conscience eating you when in fact it is God convicting you of sin. God created the scientific thought process. Everything you see was naturally created by God; but the way he created was with a design and a way that nature could sustain itself.