Scientific Facts In The Bible

Krazysh0t
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

So did this thread stop being about science in the bible and start being about proselytizing?

It went in the direction the readers chose for it to go.

WonderBoi

Krazysh0t
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

So did this thread stop being about science in the bible and start being about proselytizing?

It went in the direction the readers chose for it to go.

And yet you are the one posting unscientific stuff like this. Where is the science in those excerpts, exactly? It's not because of science that you appreciate those selections.

reply to post by MrConspiracy

I don't get the deal with people who group people together by their religion. "Christians" vary in ideals and beliefs just as much as you.

The fundamentals are the same though.

The foundations of Christian theology are expressed in ecumenical creeds that are accepted by followers of the Christian faith. These professions state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, and was resurrected from the dead in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust in him for the remission of their sins. The creeds further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven, where he reigns with God the Father

Yes, you can find "good" and "bad" christians, and "good" and "bad" muslims, but the underlying core belief is in things that have no legitimate evidence to support them.

The underlying fundamental of science is "We know nothing but what we conclude from evidence."

Which, is meant to change and evolve as we increase the knowledge of the world around us. It is not meant to be a finite belief. The others are though, and based on something that cannot be supported with evidence.

reply to post by WonderBoi

Why is it so hard to BELIEVE that Earth is a special place? Why can't people comprehend that??? God aside, you have to say: Yeah, it is!!!

Would you like to see just how special our planet is? Click on the link and scroll down you should be amazed.


How many earth in the night sky

boncho
reply to post by MrConspiracy

 

I don't get the deal with people who group people together by their religion. "Christians" vary in ideals and beliefs just as much as you.

The fundamentals are the same though.

The foundations of Christian theology are expressed in ecumenical creeds that are accepted by followers of the Christian faith. These professions state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, and was resurrected from the dead in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust in him for the remission of their sins. The creeds further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven, where he reigns with God the Father

Yes, you can find "good" and "bad" christians, and "good" and "bad" muslims, but the underlying core belief is in things that have no legitimate evidence to support them.

The underlying fundamental of science is "We know nothing but what we conclude from evidence."

Which, is meant to change and evolve as we increase the knowledge of the world around us. It is not meant to be a finite belief. The others are though, and based on something that cannot be supported with evidence.

edit on 31-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

I get what you're saying... "Science" (hate using that word for EVERYTHING that falls under it) is the best we have to answer so many questions..... but science today is so different to the science 50 years ago. I mean, it's forever proving itself wrong... so why hold so much faith in it? If it constantly changes it's mind... how can it so reliable?

And i'm a fan of science and everything it's brought/taught us. But come on... lets not pretend it's the holy grail /pun of knowledge. There's some things science will NEVER be able to teach us.

reply to post by MrConspiracy

I get what you're saying... "Science" (hate using that word for EVERYTHING that falls under it) is the best we have to answer so many questions..... but science today is so different to the science 50 years ago. I mean, it's forever proving itself wrong... so why hold so much faith in it? If it constantly changes it's mind... how can it so reliable?

Because it forever aims to educate itself. I mean, for the most part it's not "wrong" so much as it is a very small glimpse into the greater picture.

Also, scientific principals are not asking you to, forcing you to believe anything. They are also not telling you something is wrong based on application of faith.

That is politics. Politics injected into legitimate scientific discovery is the warped version of seeking truths.

How scientific discovery applies to your life and how you perceive your existence, your morality, etc… are all philosophical questions.

And i'm a fan of science and everything it's brought/taught us. But come on... lets not pretend it's the holy grail /pun of knowledge. There's some things science will NEVER be able to teach us.

The only limit is the human capacity for learning and understanding. Simply chalking it up to a mysterious man in the sky is taking the easy way out.

If the accounts of biblical times happened today would people not look for a scientific explanation or would they immediately assume their gods have come home to roost?

And… With our knowledge of the universe and technology wouldn't the descriptions seem eerily to an alien invasion? Would people even think it's god?

reply to post by MrConspiracy


That's the whole point of science, in order to find the truth the scientific process must be subject to constant scrutiny, if something is proven wrong then the process is a healthy one, constantly questioning and continually evolving, this is the search for the truth and that is real science.

Which is completely the opposite of religious dogma, "if the book says so, then it must be true".

I think it's hilarious that people question science whilst virtually surrounded by and literally kept alive by the fruits of scientific inquiry. Take fire for example, hundreds of thousands of years ago people learned how to make fire, in essence this is science, it requires understanding, learning, experimentation and knowledge, sure these ancient humans didn't fully understand the process of combustion, that came much later, but the fact that they could share this knowledge with other people, that there were right ways and wrong ways to do it, that it was repeatable, that makes it science. Science is the human brain working, religious dogma is the human brain on idle.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Science regards many things as factual that are not scrutinized in any way by any one. Also, the few who do scrutinize such things end up getting there tenure revoked. Please explain who has proven evolution by scientific testing. Also who has actually tested Carbon 14 dating against different mediums(soil effects, humidity, temperature, etc.)? To actually accomplish this you would have to build a hypothesis(Carbon 14 decays at a set rate), bury exactly the same objects in different testing mediums, soils and such. Then you would have to come back at a set time in the future (5000 years or so). Who has done this? No one. But Carbon 14 dating is regarded as factual. I'm just saying. Not everything science regards as factual has been scrutinized at all.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


I wouldn't say it's the human brain on idle. It's the human brain pondering life outside the physical.

You know.. i never questioned science. I merely pointed out that it can not be taken as "IT" as some people seem to do. People say those who believe in any type of faith are backward.... I think people who believe only "science" has the answers - And anything science can't prove is WRONG are backward.

I'm not sitting here and telling you i'm the most religious person in the world. Because believe me i'm not... and i see how organised religion has done a terrible amount of bad. But i'm also not going to sit here and lie to myself about the fact that i truly have faith in "something" else simply because science junkies love their stuff beyond all doubt and will jump at the chance to laugh at me and call me "hilarious" "stupid" ... the list, im sure, goes on.

You talk about science finding the truth. How will we ever know the full truth via sceince? Science is always playing catch up and we constantly get new "theories" every day that are proven wrong, proven right, then changed and proven wrong again. It's a never ending cycle of TRYING. I respect the trying, and i hope for the sake of everyone, that science continues to TRY.

But all i'm saying is - Don't expect all your answers to come from this amazing "Science"

reply to post by boncho


I've never been told anything is wrong by any religious person/group. Once again, i'm extremely FOR science and it's ability to develop.

Human's limited learning capacity should say it all..... Who runs religion? Who carries out scientific experiments? Humans do. Both are difficult but both have their merits (yes, even religion. :O) but both can not be taken as the ONLY answer.

I've never understood the divide between science and religion and those who follow them. There really seems to be a problem

- Those who hold strongly on to science and "FACTS" are so ready to jump and mock those who have the tiniest bit of faith. And don't deny it... they are. Not all... but a LOT of them. I've been at the receiving end for just mentioning the word "faith".

- Those who are too caught up in their religious beliefs sometimes have a very limited view on the world and are unwilling to co-co-operate and change. Again, of course not all. - I think people see faith and suspect all with faith to be ran by organised religion.

Neither will EVER prove the other to be untrue. In fact, they are probably so closely linked, it's untrue!

pleasethink
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

Science regards many things as factual that are not scrutinized in any way by any one. Also, the few who do scrutinize such things end up getting there tenure revoked. Please explain who has proven evolution by scientific testing.

Evolution is a process that incorporates many fields of scientific inquiry, and involving millions of people who study subjects like genetics, paleontology etc. They all concur, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove evolution as a known and understood discipline to you.

Also who has actually tested Carbon 14 dating against different mediums(soil effects, humidity, temperature, etc.)? To actually accomplish this you would have to build a hypothesis(Carbon 14 decays at a set rate), bury exactly the same objects in different testing mediums, soils and such. Then you would have to come back at a set time in the future (5000 years or so). Who has done this? No one. But Carbon 14 dating is regarded as factual. I'm just saying. Not everything science regards as factual has been scrutinized at all.

Actually no. Carbon 14 dating is based upon our understanding of isotopes. Are you going to try and tell me that nobody has queried that branch of chemistry? Really? The testing method you suggest as a lesson in crassness.

A lot of this seems to be trolling. I would like to make a few more things known to all who would care to read them: First, I noticed that someone said something about proselytizing and I would like to say that just because someone makes their beliefs known, does not mean you have to read them. Second, people who think that people that read the Bible are stupid always make the second argument about intolerance, while they themselves seem to miss the dismissive intolerance they themselves are displaying. Seems kind of hypocritical/paradoxical. I find it amusing actually. If you ever took time to read it, it might surprise you. It actually displays a incredible level of understanding of this existence, and demands the same from you. Third, and possibly off topic, why is homosexuality always brought up in these type of discussions? It is strange. Is it because of the Bibles statements about homosexuality? Seems like it belongs in another discussion. I personally think Wonderboi presented a great initial argument. You have to expect these responses from people. I suggest reading Proverbs, written mostly by Solomon, considered by many to be the wisest man(aside from Yeshua, who's humanity is debatable) who ever lived.

MrConspiracy
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

I wouldn't say it's the human brain on idle. It's the human brain pondering life outside the physical.

You know.. i never questioned science. I merely pointed out that it can not be taken as "IT" as some people seem to do. People say those who believe in any type of faith are backward.... I think people who believe only "science" has the answers - And anything science can't prove is WRONG are backward.

I'm not sitting here and telling you i'm the most religious person in the world. Because believe me i'm not... and i see how organised religion has done a terrible amount of bad. But i'm also not going to sit here and lie to myself about the fact that i truly have faith in "something" else simply because science junkies love their stuff beyond all doubt and will jump at the chance to laugh at me and call me "hilarious" "stupid" ... the list, im sure, goes on.

You talk about science finding the truth. How will we ever know the full truth via sceince? Science is always playing catch up and we constantly get new "theories" every day that are proven wrong, proven right, then changed and proven wrong again. It's a never ending cycle of TRYING. I respect the trying, and i hope for the sake of everyone, that science continues to TRY.

But all i'm saying is - Don't expect all your answers to come from this amazing "Science"

I actually agree with most of what you're saying here. I personally don't have a problem with human spirituality at all, and I don't like "science junkies" who dismiss people's beliefs. I do loathe religious dogma though. This issue is continuously polarized by people with extreme opinions in either camp. When I read opinions like some expressed in this thread I call it ignorance. Science is just a search that is all, it does not have all the answers, it never will, the ones who have all the answers are usually the pious religious types, from my experience.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Dude, crasness? Really? Anyways, the testing I suggest is following general scientific protocol. One must first have a hypothesis, then controlled means of experimentation to support ones hypothesis. This is basic stuff. No offense. No one has done these tests. Thats all I'm saying. And you know why people never want to debate evolution? It's because it is impossible to prove. If as science suggests, a creature evolved from a primordial soup, than became a fish, then a mammal, etc etc. This is impossible, as any fish you pull out of water dies. It does not grow lungs to adapt to its new environment. Try it out. Its true. You know what causes you to take the form you possess? DNA. Do you know what is similar to DNA? An OS. Did my computer evolve? If I showed you a Mac Pro and told you all of its capabilities and you had never seen one before, you would be astonished. If then I told you that this thing just grew there like that, you would look at me like I was crazy. Well, sir, you are utilizing something far more complex and advanced to type your responses to this website, but I guess you just don't see it cause it's right in front of you.

Also, I love science and I believe that God exists. I mean I really love science. I hate that people seem to have this stereotype that is you believe in God you are some boob who just hates the crap out of science. It is something I love dearly, as it reveals things that I long to understand. I have referred to it in the past as like touching the face of God. I just won't support science that is not based upon its own millenniums of recognized scientific protocols. This stuff goes way back people.

pleasethink
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

Dude, crasness? Really? Anyways, the testing I suggest is following general scientific protocol. One must first have a hypothesis, then controlled means of experimentation to support ones hypothesis. This is basic stuff. No offense. No one has done these tests. Thats all I'm saying.

Ok, so you are serious? 5000 years? Get a grip, no offense.

And you know why people never want to debate evolution? It's because it is impossible to prove. If as science suggests, a creature evolved from a primordial soup, than became a fish, then a mammal, etc etc. This is impossible, as any fish you pull out of water dies. It does not grow lungs to adapt to its new environment. Try it out. Its true. You know what causes you to take the form you possess? DNA. Do you know what is similar to DNA? An OS. Did my computer evolve? If I showed you a Mac Pro and told you all of its capabilities and you had never seen one before, you would be astonished. If then I told you that this thing just grew there like that, you would look at me like I was crazy. Well, sir, you are utilizing something far more complex and advanced to type your responses to this website, but I guess you just don't see it cause it's right in front of you.

Firstly, off the bat you try to mix abiogenesis with evolution. Secondly, your next statements show that you do not understand how evolution works, so why on earth would I want to debate that subject with you. If you want to engage somebody in a discussion at least be versed in the subject matter. You are obviously a follower of doctrine, so continue on your road, unchallenged and content, sir.

reply to post by seabhac-rua

Are you aware of any other feasible way to test Carbon 14 decay? There could possibly be environmental effects on Carbon 14 decay that are not understood. Thats why the time/environmental affects would need to be tested. I thought it was pretty logical actually. Also, I am not, nor do not profess to be, a scholar in the field of evolution. As I understand it, a creature becomes a entirely different creature over long periods of time following a path of natural selection, as per Charles Darwin. Now as a rule, it is pretty scetchy, and I would say that if one such as yourself was to try something today to test this theory scientifically, that the test would fail, hence the test never happens. Period. No offense. I honestly respect your desire to know what you know. Just saying that it is factually unprovable which is contrary to your argument.

reply to post by pleasethink


Human evolution is the evolutionary process leading up to the appearance of modern humans. While it began with the last common ancestor of all life,...

Straight outta the definition of human evolution available in wikipedia. I know a little.

Science aims to label the worldly, spirituality accepts it as itself. They are two rightfully equal perspectives of life.

As far as science vs. religion is concerned, yes both are usually wrong. There are many scientific theories, and there are many religions out there. Not all of them could be right. There will certainly be a whole lot more wrongs than rights on both sides.

But I have to say I admire science because people are actively looking around for answers, and testing their theories and hypotheses. When it comes to religion they don't really bother trying to test their ideas, and everything is pretty much set in stone. Unless they go out with a biased mindset trying to prove their own faith. They have accepted everything they up hold is truth, and there is no point trying to look for answers.

So at least science attempting to find things out. While religion is comfortable with their views and feel no need to experiment. Religions are more lazy quite frankly.

Plus, I never understood why science and religion are pitted against each other sometimes. Science would actually help religion. It would just further your understanding, and make us closer to the universe, or "god" if you want to say that. They both have a common goal; Answering the big questions people have been asking.