Genesis

[simplyg123]

i Would rather listen to the bible, seems the bible has been ahead of science all along

THE BIBLE
(2,000-3,000 years ago)
The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).

SCIENCE THEN
The earth was a flat disk.

SCIENCE NOW
The earth is a sphere.
----------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Innumerable stars (Jeremiah 33:22).

SCIENCE THEN
Only 1,100 stars.

SCIENCE NOW
Innumerable stars.
----------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7).

SCIENCE THEN
Earth sat on a large animal.

SCIENCE NOW
Free float of earth in space.
----------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews11:3).

SCIENCE THEN
Science was ignorant on the subject.

SCIENCE NOW
Creation made of invisible elements (atoms).
----------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41).

SCIENCE THEN
All stars were the same.

SCIENCE NOW
Each star is different.
----------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Light moves (Job 38:19,20).

SCIENCE THEN
Light was fixed in place.

SCIENCE NOW
Light moves.
-------------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Air has weight (Job 28:25).

SCIENCE THEN
Air was weightless.

SCIENCE NOW
Air has weight.
---------------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

SCIENCE THEN
Winds blew straight.

SCIENCE NOW
Winds blow in cyclones.
--------------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11).

SCIENCE THEN
Sick people must be bled.

SCIENCE NOW
Blood is the source of life and health.
-------------------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah
2:6).

SCIENCE THEN
The ocean floor was flat.

SCIENCE NOW
Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains.
------------------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16).

SCIENCE THEN
Ocean fed only by rivers and rain.

SCIENCE NOW
Ocean contains springs.
-------------------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water
(Leviticus 15:13).

SCIENCE THEN
Hands washed in still water.

SCIENCE NOW
When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.​

 

[busterdog]

i Would rather listen to the bible, seems the bible has been ahead of science all along

THE BIBLE
(2,000-3,000 years ago)
The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).

SCIENCE THEN
The earth was a flat disk.

SCIENCE NOW
The earth is a sphere.
----------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Innumerable stars (Jeremiah 33:22).

SCIENCE THEN
Only 1,100 stars.

SCIENCE NOW
Innumerable stars.
----------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7).

SCIENCE THEN
Earth sat on a large animal.

SCIENCE NOW
Free float of earth in space.
----------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews11:3).

SCIENCE THEN
Science was ignorant on the subject.

SCIENCE NOW
Creation made of invisible elements (atoms).
----------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41).

SCIENCE THEN
All stars were the same.

SCIENCE NOW
Each star is different.
----------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Light moves (Job 38:19,20).

SCIENCE THEN
Light was fixed in place.

SCIENCE NOW
Light moves.
-------------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Air has weight (Job 28:25).

SCIENCE THEN
Air was weightless.

SCIENCE NOW
Air has weight.
---------------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

SCIENCE THEN
Winds blew straight.

SCIENCE NOW
Winds blow in cyclones.
--------------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11).

SCIENCE THEN
Sick people must be bled.

SCIENCE NOW
Blood is the source of life and health.
-------------------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah
2:6).

SCIENCE THEN
The ocean floor was flat.

SCIENCE NOW
Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains.
------------------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16).

SCIENCE THEN
Ocean fed only by rivers and rain.

SCIENCE NOW
Ocean contains springs.
-------------------------------
THE BIBLE (2,000-3,000 years ago)
When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water
(Leviticus 15:13).

SCIENCE THEN
Hands washed in still water.

SCIENCE NOW
When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.​

Yes that is all very interesting. I think the scientists will tell you that they have atoned for all of their past since and that they finally have it right. However, I think the track record is still an itneresting point when trying to evaluate what people are capable of discerning.

 

[jad123]

Yes that is all very interesting. I think the scientists will tell you that they have atoned for all of their past since and that they finally have it right. However, I think the track record is still an itneresting point when trying to evaluate what people are capable of discerning.

Finally have it right until the next great scientific discovery proves what they know today to be wrong.

 

[simplyg123]

Finally have it right until the next great scientific discovery proves what they know today to be wrong.

amen brother

 

[simplyg123]

the next great discovery will be, "the book of answers", *cough* bible *cough*

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes that is all very interesting. I think the scientists will tell you that they have atoned for all of their past since and that they finally have it right. However, I think the track record is still an itneresting point when trying to evaluate what people are capable of discerning.

point me to one scientist that things science is 100% correct? any field, any topic. show me a scientist who thinks that science is anything but provisional and furthermore that this provisionalness is anything but an ethical good? you are projecting religious certainty onto science, mistaking science for something like religion. that is why this argument that science changes and therefore is basically wrong resonates in the religious communities, because that is a (apparently) fundamental principle of religion. Things that are consistent over time and don't change are good and more truthful then things that evolve and change and mutate and show development.

btw:
see:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30034061&postcount=3
for an analysis of why philo-sophia in Col 2:8 has nothing to do with modern philosophy but is a misidentification. this word is a label for a jewish movement that Paul is writing against.

 

[Deamiter]

Yes that is all very interesting. I think the scientists will tell you that they have atoned for all of their past since and that they finally have it right. However, I think the track record is still an itneresting point when trying to evaluate what people are capable of discerning.

First off, you'd be wrong about what you think scientists would tell you. Rather dishonest putting words into their mouths especially when you know they disagree with you so frequently!

Scientists are always striving toward a better understanding of the universe. If it were not so, they'd write books and preach their current understanding rather than constantly researching to better and change their understanding.

Interesting how some of those points are flatly misinterpretations too -- the first claims that Isaiah 40 says that the earth is spherical. In fact it uses a word that means "circle." They had no generic word for the spherical shape, but many that would have been more accurate like ball.

It also utterly ignores many Hebrew beliefs like the existance of a firmament and the many references to a sun moving around the Earth. Many Christians look at all of these as metaphorical or descriptive language. You seem to pick and choose -- labeling those things science has shown as "Biblical truth" and those things that science has falsified as "purely metaphorical." Rather inconsistant if you think the Bible was talking about how creation is made of invisible elements, but CERTAINLY wasn't suggesting that the sun moved around the earth when it said that the sun stood still in the sky.

 

[busterdog]

the next great discovery will be, "the book of answers", *cough* bible *cough*

Maybe you guys could liven up the creationist fellowship forum.

As you can see, this one thrives on words like "dishonest", "fraud" and various words for "unscientific".

 

[KerrMetric]

Maybe you guys could liven up the creationist fellowship forum.

Agreed - they probably could.

As you can see, this one thrives on words like "dishonest", "fraud" and various words for "unscientific".

When people are dishonest what word should we use?

When people are frauds what word should we use?

When people are unscientific what words should we use?

Seems to me those words are fine.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I listened to a PBS radio show the other day that featured the Science Vs. Religion theme. It mentioned a recent poll revealing that 50 per cent of Americans believe in supernatural creation of the universe, while only 25 per cent believe in the theory of evolution. It went on to say that these findings were perplexing to scientists, who cannot understand how an educated public can believe this way.

Another part of the poll revealed that many people are turned off by the arrogance of scientists, and the disdain that they express towards religious beliefs concerning the origins of the universe.

I carefully observed how much time was given to each side of the discussion. The first half hour was pretty balanced. However, the last half hour was dedicated almost entirely to the scientific viewpoint. I knew this would happen, though. After all it was PBS.

 

[KerrMetric]

I listened to a PBS radio show the other day that featured the Science Vs. Religion theme. It mentioned a recent poll revealing that 50 per cent of Americans believe in supernatural creation of the universe, while only 25 per cent believe in the theory of evolution. It went on to say that these findings were perplexing to scientists, who cannot understand how an educated public can believe this way.

Another part of the poll revealed that many people are turned off by the arrogance of scientists, and the disdain that they express towards religious beliefs concerning the origins of the universe.

I carefully observed how much time was given to each side of the discussion. The first half hour was pretty balanced. However, the last half hour was dedicated almost entirely to the scientific viewpoint. I knew this would happen, though. After all it was PBS.

In related news it was found that 65% of the American public cannot balance a chequebook or even know how to calculate a percentage.

 

[random_guy]

In related news it was found that 65% of the American public cannot balance a chequebook or even know how to calculate a percentage.

Are you part of the 65%? Just kidding about you, but that number seems far too low. From my experience as a math tutor, almost no one knows how to calculate percentages. As for OldWiseGuy's comments, I would hardly trust the American public's knowledge when it comes to areas of math or science.

EDIT:
I also wouldn't trust the average American's knowledge of geography, politics, or history. What in the world happened to us?

 

[KerrMetric]

Are you part of the 65%? Just kidding about you, but that number seems far too low. From my experience as a math tutor, almost no one knows how to calculate percentages. As for OldWiseGuy's comments, I would hardly trust the American public's knowledge when it comes to areas of math or science.

EDIT:
I also wouldn't trust the average American's knowledge of geography, politics, or history. What in the world happened to us?

I was being kind. The number is probably far higher. And certainly anything like a quadratic is looked upon as arcane.

These boards on CF testify to the lay publics science knowledge which usually consists of vaguely remembered facts from junior high school 20 or more years ago, if that.

 

[simplyg123]

I was being kind. The number is probably far higher. And certainly anything like a quadratic is looked upon as arcane.

These boards on CF testify to the lay publics science knowledge which usually consists of vaguely remembered facts from junior high school 20 or more years ago, if that.

thats because scientist change thier minds so much the text books cant keep up

 

[Melethiel]

thats because scientist change thier minds so much the text books cant keep up

Yes, the textbooks are updated with new information every few years, but that is because of the very nature of science. I doubt that you would want to visit a doctor that uses the methods and ideas put forward in 50 year old textbooks. For the layman who wishes to partake in scientific discussion, the onus is on them to keep up with the latest information.

 

[simplyg123]

Yes, the textbooks are updated with new information every few years, but that is because of the very nature of science. I doubt that you would want to visit a doctor that uses the methods and ideas put forward in 50 year old textbooks. For the layman who wishes to partake in scientific discussion, the onus is on them to keep up with the latest information.

the nature of science is if you mix this with this this will happen

now i understand if the textbooks are being updated due to added information like "mix this with this, and mix that with this, to make this happen faster

but many of textbooks are in fact wrong due to human error and scientific error. and text books are being changed not updated

Twelve of the most popular science textbooks used at middle schools nationwide are riddled with errors, a new study has found.
Researchers compiled 500 pages of errors, ranging from maps depicting the equator passing through the southern United States to a photo of singer Linda Ronstadt labeled as a silicon crystal.
None of the 12 textbooks has an acceptable level of accuracy, said John Hubisz, a North Carolina State University physics professor who led the two-year survey, released earlier this month

 

[Melethiel]

the nature of science is if you mix this with this this will happen

No, that it the result of science, not the nature of it.

Twelve of the most popular science textbooks used at middle schools nationwide are riddled with errors, a new study has found.
Researchers compiled 500 pages of errors, ranging from maps depicting the equator passing through the southern United States to a photo of singer Linda Ronstadt labeled as a silicon crystal.
None of the 12 textbooks has an acceptable level of accuracy, said John Hubisz, a North Carolina State University physics professor who led the two-year survey, released earlier this month

Would you mind posting your source for this?

Any errors or outdated information in Middle School textbooks, as I see it, are less the fault of science and more the fault of the education system for not having the funds for better materials. Also, the information in those books are by necessity simplified to make them accessible to the students. Anybody partaking in a technical scientific discussion should reference textbooks at least at the college level.

 

[simplyg123]

[/U] No, that it the result of science, not the nature of it.



[/B]Would you mind posting your source for this?

Any errors or outdated information in Middle School textbooks, as I see it, are less the fault of science and more the fault of the education system for not having the funds for better materials. Also, the information in those books are by necessity simplified to make them accessible to the students. Anybody partaking in a technical scientific discussion should reference textbooks at least at the college level.

http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Teachers/sciencebookerror.html

I will admit this is more human error then anything, but it may explain why our layman education in science is so lacking

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In related news it was found that 65% of the American public cannot balance a chequebook or even know how to calculate a percentage.

Note that my poll revealed the beliefs of people, not their knowledge. What they believe in their heart is simply more imortant to them than what they should believe in their head. This would make them more spiritual than intellectual. Is that a bad thing?

 

[KerrMetric]

thats because scientist change thier minds so much the text books cant keep up

You were told yesterday that this is not true.