What Do These Verses Tell You About Science?

[Supreme]

I don't think any of those verses have anything to do with science.

 

[b&wpac7]

My point of this thread was to demonstrate that people that link science to biblical verses don't really know what their talking about. Its based on this link:


The author claims that the one of the proofs of the truthfulness of the Bible is that it lines up with science long before science discovered certain things.

The fact that no one has voted on the polls shows, to me, that this is complete baloney. If the verses are such a stretch such that no one can actually recognize them without being already given the "correct" answers, then I don't think they hold much water.

I concur. The Bible is not a book of science. It isn't supposed to be one.

 

[Robban]

I think that if we are living now in the last days, which as I understand to be not the end of the world, but only as we know it now. It is more the culmination of days. The end of the sixth millenium, year 6000, Lunar time is now 5771 the more nearer we get the more science will progress and most probably long before year 6000 will, converge with the Torah. Someone said, at that time, they will find an aged Rabbi sitting in a deckchair, and he will say,"Is this not what we have said all along."
From the Zohar1:117a
In the sixth century of the sixth millennium
(5600-5700 corresponding to the years 1740-1840)check the arithmetic here, The portals of WISDOM ABOVE, and the fountains of WISDOM BELOW
WILL BE OPENED.......This is alluded to in the words,
"In the sixth hundredth year in the life of Noah, the windows of heaven opened and all the fountains of the great depths of the earth burst forth."Gen 7:11Wisdom from above= Divine Wisdom, Wisdom from below=Science
The verses named in the poll, I cannot find a connection.

 

[Robban]

A note to post #23,
Gailleo 1564_1600.
Sir Isaac Newton 1645-1727.
Industrial Revolution begins early 1800,s.l

 

[xgel]

Science's consistent inconsistency is not dependable.Bible's answers are final and always reliable.

 

[awitch]

Science's consistent inconsistency is not dependable.Bible's answers are final and always reliable.

Science's ability to correct itself is critical; it's a virtue.

 

[Robban]

Again a note, (Iam a little rusty on this)
The academy of Eliyahu taught; The world is destined to exist 6000yrs.
The first 2000yrs were of nothingness;
The second 2000yrs were of Torah;
The third 2000yrs could have all have been the days of the Messiah.
Tractate Sanhedrin 97A
The world was created in six days, Gen chapter 1.
Indeed, a thousand years are in Yours eyes like yesterday that has passed. Psalms 90:4

 

[Robban]

I n quantum physics and mechacnics(maybe same thing, I do not know) but there are discoveries been made that would blow ya socks off. Even the socks of some scientists too, because when they realize the potential God has given mankind, it sometmes can be a little scary.

 

[awitch]

Bible's answers are final and always reliable.

Except when they're not:



439 contradictions mapped in a PDF file.

 

[dlamberth]

Bible's answers are final and always reliable.

That doesn't add up...being that there are over 30,000 different Christian sects out there.

.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Science's consistent inconsistency is not dependable.Bible's answers are final and always reliable.

If you take a test, and your answer is wrong, is sticking with the wrong answer the best option?

 

[Zoness]

Science's consistent inconsistency is not dependable.Bible's answers are final and always reliable.

You misunderstand grossly how science works.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

It is all solid trial and error science. Like I said, you don't understand the meaning of what a theory is. A scientific theory is the result of the solid trial and error science. It's the result of continued experimentation and review. Essentially, theories are as close to facts as we can get outside of logic.

The 'theory' you're thinking of is in fact the word 'hypothesis'.

Uhm no. The RESULT of the science IS the PRODUCT not the THEORY.

Man strikes stone on stone...he gets sparks..man makes fire. If you wanna extrapolate a theory out of that its your business.

A scientific hypothesis is something that can be proven or disproven with the science. It is NOT a theory.

Why would they mention them?

Because you said theories were needed to make the internet.

That is a theory. You come up with the idea, you test it out, you get other people to make sure that your results are OK, you see if it makes sense with everything else we know, and then you have a theory. Before that, it is not a theory. The reason it is a theory and not a fact is because you can never be 100% sure that it is the balloon and the wooly jumper making the electricity. Perhaps it's something else that you haven't factored in. Perhaps it's just total coincidence and you don't need either of them. The chances of these being true are slim, but as long as they're still there, it cannot be a fact. That's why science only ever really talks about theories.

No I didnt have the theory to start with. It was an accident. An error. I rubbed a balloon on my whooly jumper and produced electricity. I dont even care about the science that causes it. I just have electricity, thats all I care about. I don't need any theories.

Indeed. And that knowledge is a scientific theory.

No, that knowledge is REALITY.

 

[Booko]

At least I dont plagerize peoples sigs!

You might want to compare your join date with mine, O N00bish One.

I've been using this sig since I've been here.

 

[Booko]

Science's consistent inconsistency is not dependable.

Goodness forbid humanity strive to refine its understanding of the nature of the physical universe. It's obviously better that we hold onto outmoded ideas once they've been disproved by further evidence.

Hm.

Bible's answers are final and always reliable.

However, it's easily demonstrated that the answers humans get from the Bible are not reliable. They frequently conflict, sometimes to the point of being the cause of violence and death.

Not that I blame the Bible for that. I find it sufficient to merely observe that humans are not always reliable because they are fallible.

 

[razeontherock]

Poll!

Here's the poll: Below are three Bible verses which supposedly predict certain scientific discoveries

If these verses do show something about science

Awfully big word - IF.

Those verses have NOTHING to do with science ...

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Awfully big word - IF.

Those verses have NOTHING to do with science ...

That is the exact subject this thread was addressing. I think we've settled the fact by saying that those verses have little to do with science based on the responses I've had. This is despite some people ardently believing that certain verses such as these prove the Bible's legitimacy.

How do we know the Bible is true? - ChristianAnswers.Net

 

[razeontherock]

it's easily demonstrated that the answers humans get from the Bible are not reliable. They frequently conflict, sometimes to the point of being the cause of violence and death.

Not that I blame the Bible for that. I find it sufficient to merely observe that humans are not always reliable because they are fallible.

Ok since the OP has run it's course it's immaterial that this is now off topic; but THIS point is valid all on it's own! There are some people who claim that the Bible itself is anywhere from bad to downright evil, and others who say reading it has turned them away from G-d. The only such person in that camp with us here now that I know of is Mark, so of course I wonder if this thought has occurred to him ...

The content of the Bible intentionally brings out the worst in us. It is how we react to that coming to the surface that matters ...

 

[Eudaimonist]

However, it's easily demonstrated that the answers humans get from the Bible are not reliable. They frequently conflict, sometimes to the point of being the cause of violence and death.

Yes, the Bible contains everything from the beatific to the horrific. It's a mixed bag, but then just about everything out there is.

Not that I blame the Bible for that. I find it sufficient to merely observe that humans are not always reliable because they are fallible.

Blame goes everywhere that it belongs. The problem isn't that fallible beings are making mistakes in practicing perfect ideas. Fallibility does not excuse error, especially when error may make fallible beings even more fallible.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

The problem isn't that fallible beings are making mistakes in practicing perfect ideas. Fallibility does not excuse error, especially when error may make fallible beings even more fallible.

The problem is not the text, but the incorrect understanding of it. *shudder* Gawd that sounds so RC, like we need one codified understanding of it ... which is not the case. I stand by my previous statement, that even our misunderstanding of it merely exposes the flaws within; perhaps the best reason to be part of a good Church, to sort all that stuff out.