Is the Bible Really Scientifically Accurate? (page 2)

BurnTheShips

It isn't a science book, and was never meant to be.

BTS

Perry, Scientist try to answer questions by testing what they see around them. As their means to test becomes more sophisticated they answers will evolve. Knowlegde will continue to grow because scientists will continue to question. The bible in the other hand is said to have the answers. When proved wrong or unprovable the reader of the bible has to excerise faith. Scientists may not have all the answers, and they will come up with new theories from the observations they make, but at least they where they don't know they can keep asking the questions and don't need faith. Faith can not truly be tested but questioning science can.

Olin Moyles Ghost

In some places it is; in some places it isn't. The problem is that the Bible claims to be the inspired word of an all-powerful God who cannot lie. Thus, if there are any scientific (or historical) inaccuracies, then the Bible cannot be what it claims to be.

Some problems include:

Genesis 1: the universe created in six literal days ("there came to be evening, there came to be morning) about 6000 years ago. Demonstrably false.
Genesis 1: plants created before the sun was created. Ever heard of photosynthesis?
Genesis 6 and 7: a global flood that was several "cubits" higher than Mount Everest about 4300 years ago. Impossible and provably false.
Ecclesiastes 1:5: the sun revolves around the earth. Galileo proved this one wrong a few hundred years ago.

These are just a few examples of where the Bible includes statements that are clearly false. Of course, modern religious believers twist and rationalize the plain words of Scripture to try to make them fit the facts. But, the plain fact of the matter is that the Bible was written by men, several thousand years ago, and includes the scientific misunderstandings of the men who wrote it.

PSacramento

I think that, for when it was written and by whom, it is surprisingly not that bad.

lovelylil2

The bible is a faith book and not a science book. Its like comparing apples and oranges.

Perry

Perry, Scientist try to answer questions by testing what they see around them.

And PEER REVIEW and funding controls what they see and especially what they publically say.

I'm curious, do you believe that science will be able to answer every question or; are there some answers that must be revealed?

JWoods

So far, science has answered every question that we know of an answer for sure.

If revelation from the God-realm really answered religious things in a finite way, there would not be hundreds of different religions in the world still today.

Religion is in fact derived from human thought on these subjects, and so is subject to a wide range of rather wild hypothesis.

Some "pseudo-science" is much the same way, but this kind of nonsense is never provable. Real science is either provable, or is labeled as theory.

The Bible scientifically accurate? Does anybody really believe that the earth was totally covered by fresh water in around 2300 BC? That all surviving animals (not to mention plants) were on a small wooden ark during that time? Does anybody really believe that ancient patriarchs actually lived many hundreds of years old? Does anybody really believe that the first human was created in about 4000 BC?

If you do, you have picked the bible over science in areas of provable fact.

cantleave

I'm curious, do you believe that science will be able to answer every question or; are there some answers that must be revealed?

Perry, I don't think as a species we will ever have all the answers, but we will always do what we can to make sense of what we see around us. The human mind will always wonder why? how? and when? and this characteristic to question is what creates the biggest ideas. One of these ideas is that of the existence of a divine being a creator. This is a hypothesis created as a direct result of our endeavour to explain what we see. There are of course other non spiritual hypothesis that have been formulated for the same reasons. Many of these ideas have an important place culturally but should never be above scrutiny. The same is true science, as you quite rightly point out, peer review is a fundamental part of the scientific approach and it is this questioning that moves dicovery forward.

Perry

peer review is a fundamental part of the scientific approach and it is this questioning that moves dicovery forward.

Or as I provided in my links, peer review can be a mechanism for deception of true science....do you agree? Did you read about the deception and corruption in the peer review process in the Climategate scandal?

One of these ideas is that of the existence of a divine being a creator. This is a hypothesis created as a direct result of our endeavour to explain what we see.

God is no longer a hypotheiss or an idea for me, or for millions of others. He is testable and after a while ... predictable. You'll have to restrict such comments to those who share your beliefs.

cantleave

peer review can be a mechanism for deception of true science....do you agree?

If conducted properly by the publication of academic papers, in the appropriate literature, for scrutiny by the entire scientific community (or at least those involved in the specific field under discussion) peer review, is certainly not a forum for deception. Do not mix up a statement being prepared for press release as peer review, it is not! The "climategate" scandal was nothing to do with peer review, it was presenting a message to make a valid point. That process was fundamentally flawed because the data was manipulated for propaganda purposes.

Is the Bible Really Scientifically Accurate?

Share this