Is the Bible Really Scientifically Accurate? (page 6)

Olin Moyles Ghost

@Perry: I gave four examples on the first page of this thread. I'll copy my post below:

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.

cantleave

I guess you can believe what you want. But, the overwhelming evidence was that a few people together with the funding process dominated the peer review process and produced a reality opposite of the truth.

I believe what I see in terms of scientific developments and the uses to which they have been put to use.

No system is perfect and everyone involved in the process wants their work to be recognised and not overly criticised. At the end of the day the evidence that the system works can be seen by what you use in everyday life.

I have a degree in chemistry, (unfortunately I was not good enough to achieve anymore than BSc level), but I was able to see the peer review system in action and it worked extremely well.

Over 20 years ago I was involved in project work involving the electrical / chemical and properties of LCDs. The team I was working with published a number of papers indicating some of the potential uses of LCD's based on some very interesting results on electrical and polar properties observed. At the time LCD displays were simple numeric displays with very few uses. Today LCD's are used in everyday applications such as high definition TV's. These applications were just fantasy 20 years ago. A great deal of what see today is because of peer reviews of those papers and the subsequent research resulting from those reviews.

Perry

No system is perfect and everyone involved in the process wants their work to be recognised and not overly criticised.

Exactly, human nature, pride, intimidation, financial concerns are all involved in the peer-review process. As we have seen, subjective forces can be rather easily manipulated to promote a GLOBAL HOAX.

I'm not saying that it doesn't work much of the time the way it should. If it didn't work most of the time, no one would put faith in that process and these global hoaxes would not be impossible. Things that are mostly true make the best instuments of deception.

Perry

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.

Of course, modern religious believers twist and rationalize the plain words of Scripture to try to make them fit the facts.

Never hurts to poison the well a bit eh?

Ever heard of the Gap Theory? For every problem that you can show me with a young earth/universe model, I can show you a problem that doesn't fit with an old earth/universe model. Do you really want to go on and on for the next week swaping cut and pastes? Because that is how much information is out there on both sides. Same with the Flood. Plenty of recognized scientists on both sides of the issue. Gap theory is interesting in that says that the earth is both old and young.

So take your pick. At the end of the day, I believe the bible is true within the proper contextual standpoint. Eccl. 1:5 is the perfect example of this. From the standpoint of sun it is false, from the standpoint of the earth, it is true. I really don't think that either the sun or the earth "rises".

JWoods

Same with the Flood. Plenty of recognized scientists on both sides of the issue. Gap theory is interesting in that says that the earth is both old and young.

OK. (recognized scientists really agree there was a global flood higher than Everest <.> 4K years ago???)

I believe the bible is true within the proper contextual standpoint. Eccl. 1:5 is the perfect example of this. From the standpoint of sun it is false, from the standpoint of the earth, it is true. I really don't think that either the sun or the earth "rises".

OK - again. This is why it is actually useless to debate these issues very far with a fundamentalist. Twists of logic make the bible right each and every time no matter how scientifically unsound the simple and actual statement.

I think I am done with this thread for the time being, the whole of the "logic" having been exposed.

Olin Moyles Ghost

Even under the "gap theory"--which I understand from the link to mean that there's a gap of millions/billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2--doesn't a literal fundamentalist reading of the Bible require all life on earth to be in the neighborhood of 6000 years old. In other words, dinosaurs coexisted with Adam and Eve, etc.

That's just silly. I find it fascinating that grown-ups believe this kind of thing. But not many years ago, I believed in talking snakes, talking donkeys, global floods, etc., which are just as ludicrous, so I guess I shouldn't be so quick to criticize.

And I'm skeptical that there are "plenty of recognized scientists" who believe that about 4300 years ago there was a global flood that covered the earth higher than Mt. Everest.

Finally, I understand that you believe that the Bible is true "within the proper contextual standpoint." That simply means that when observed facts prove the Bible wrong, you change what the Bible means. The WTS and many Christians do this with Genesis 1. Only mouth-breathing fundamentalists still believe that all life on the earth is 6000 years old. So the WTS and others say that "day" can mean thousands/millions of years.

I posit that this is completely at odds with the plain language of the scripture which discusses each "day" comprising an "evening" and a "morning." This strongly indicates that the writer is referring to 24-hour days. Any other reading is strained and contradictory to the plain text. But lots of Christians are willing to do this to salvage their holy book.

Perry

In other words, dinosaurs coexisted with Adam and Eve, etc. That's just silly. I find it fascinating that grown-ups believe this kind of thing.

Oh Really?

Here's some dinosaur skin recently found a few months ago..... some of it still organic. Isn't that interesting?

Notice the similarity with the biblical description in Job 40 & 41:

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.... He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. (Ch.41) Who can open the doors of his face ? his teeth are terrible round about . His scales are pride , shut up together as with a close seal . One is so near to another , that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another , they stick together , that they cannot be sundered . his

Image: Dinosaur skin

Stinking, rotting, soft tissue keeps being discovered as I predicted several years ago when I first posted about it here. I further predict that similar discoveries will continue. Like Here

I also predict that scientists, controlled and manipulated by the peer review process will continue in their denials despite SHOCKING DISCOVERIES:

ARTICLE HERE

Perry

Olin,

Like I said, it really is pointless to argue about it. Some folks are going to look at the evidence and see "65 million" year old skin, blood vessels and hemoglobin parts....because it fits into their belief system. They will figure out some way to convince themselves that these organic tissues lasted longer than the Rocky Mountains rising and weathering down to nothing and back up again a couple of times.

The reality is that these findings fit much closer to a biblical worldview and DESTROYS the typical secularist worldview.

For anyone interested, here's a great site with artifacts that do not fit the secularist historical paradigm:

BIZARRE ARTIFACTS

SixofNine

The bar has to be really high before God's words are "spiritualized" or are taken metaphorically, or philosophically for a fundamentalist.

Do you have any evidence that the bible is "god's words"? I've certainly never seen any.

hamilcarr

Isn't that interesting?

It certainly is. And there's even more interesting stuff in the article. The cause of the preservation, for instance.

Their remarkable preservation is due to the dinosaur's quick burial. Shortly after the hadrosaur's death near a sandy river channel, the researchers believe its body was covered in a waterlogged setting that prohibited contact with atmospheric oxygen. This led to rapid mineralization that appears to have outpaced tissue decay.

And the remarkable similarity with other reptiles and birds.

The study further determined the organic skin molecules are consistent with molecules found in crocodile claws and bird feathers and strengthens the evolutionary link between the dinosaurs and those animals.

Is the Bible Really Scientifically Accurate?

Share this