Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Baddog1, re Chapter 6 on Abiogenesis, the first cell was nowhere near as complex as current ones which have had billions of years in which to evolve.

1. It is a lie to say that the fossil record indicates stasis. Of course there are gaps in some lineages, but a lot have been filled in the 30 years since Smith gave his lecture. How do you explain the progression of species indicated by the millions of fossils we DO have?

2. The big bang does not indicate a creator, nor does it require intelligence to fine-tune anything. Life evolved to fit the existing conditions on earth, and evolved further each time those conditions changed. If you think an intelligent designer was required, where did it come from, how did it get its knowledge, and where did it get the "stuff" it made the universe out of?

3. No one thinks that present-day DNA and cells assemble randomly. The first cells may have been aggregates of amino acids, lipids, and other randomly assembled chemicals. We don't yet know, and may never know exactly how it happened. But no one has come up with any alternate theory that accounts for the improbablity of intelligent designer that just happened to exist complete with the knowledge, ability and desire to create life on earth.

Only people who do not understand the laws of thermodynamics think that they prohibit the assembly of cells or evolution of life. Every chemical or physical process that occurs in cells increases the total amount of entropy in the universe, usually by giving off waste heat. Entropy isn't about organization, it's about energy transfer. It's that simple.


Re Chapter 14: historians of the time failed to record the existence of a son of God walking on earth, his alleged miracles, or resurrection. They also failed to note tombs opening and the dead walking the streets when he was crucified. I wonder how such an important event could have been completely missed?

If anyone is qualified to determine whether or not Jesus met the OT qualifications as a Messiah, it is the original owners of the book and the ones to whom the Messiah was promised. They said no. So this bunch of dissidents comes along, co-opts their God-given scripture and claims that some upstart is the Messiah, and that God reneged on his promises and no longer considers the Jews to be his Chosen People. The Laws of Moses are rescinded (contrary to what Jesus himself said) and all anyone has to do is believe in Christ (or maybe do good works too, depending on your denomination) and they will live happily ever after while the rest of us burn in the hell created for us by a loving God. Right.

And what does all of this have to do with the scientific accuracy of the Bible? Demons being driven out of people, magical cures for illnesses, walking on water, dead people coming back to life, trees withering at a word, H2O magically acquiring alcohol and other organic molecules - I guess you don't get much more scientific than that!

Baddog1, I'm still waiting for your responses to these questions, which are pertinent to the assertion that the Bible is a reliable source of scientific information:

Do you believe that Eve was created from Adam's rib?

When did God create viruses and other disease organisms?

Do you believe that there was a world-wide flood and that all existing species descended from the specimens on Noah's ark?

Is everyone (including Africans, Asians, Aborigines and Native Americans) descended from Noah?

Did God cause the plagues in Egypt and murder all of the first-born?

Did Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego walk around in a blazing furnace in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics?

Did God confuse languages and scatter the people over the earth to keep them from achieving anything?

Do Jacob's genetic engineering methods really work?

Were there rainbows before the flood?

We now know the answers to the science quiz God gave Job, but God never answered the questions Job asked him.

Re the Fermi paradox, IMO, there is probably intelligent life out there but they are too smart to draw attention to themselves in case there are predatory species in the neighborhood.

Why do you think that God would create billions of planets in each of billions of galaxies, but only put life on one of them? Why does the Bible fail to address this important scientific question? Why doesn't it explain why expansion of the universe is accelerating, whether there is any basis to string theory, or how cancer can be cured? What good is it if the scientific info in it can only be properly interpreted after it is discovered independently?

And you 'know' that to be the case how? Has anyone observed one of these?

The theory of evolution dating the current organization of the earth into billions of years is about as credible as a petrified fart.

About the same as the petrified fart of your bible

Ahh, see, the petrified part of my Bible is the likes of Lot's wife looking back, and scientists trying to look back in history with their phony dating techniques that are as corrupt as their weekend dating escapades. Am I right? Huh, am I? I knew you'd have to agree with that. Now we can move on to 6,000 years of fine fine history. Beyond that, there are billions of years of evolution, yes, but that doesn't touch the seven days of creation any more than the review of the universe does away with the earth itself.

Street

Concepts of managing fission don't qualify him any more as a commentator on whether or not civilizations become spare-faring, or are detectable as space-faring civilizations than it would qualify him to comment on theories of domestic horticulture. (And we all know, thanks to the brilliant Miss Parker, that you can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think.)

If you object to the term putz, that's fine by me. Nevertheless, i consider Fermi's remark to have been arrogant and naive. Your comment about the number of stars in the cosmos doesn't address my core objections, which are based on "human nature," and what would pass for human nature in other sentient species. Unless and until someone shows some incredible short cut around the laws of the physical universe, it will require incredibly huge amounts of energy and resources to put any significant number of "people" into interstellar space, deal with the problem of zero "g," shield them from cosmic radiation, and provide for their survival over many years. When those issues are considered, and it is considered how unlikely it is that those left behind will be willing to make long-term sacrifices, then it becomes increasingly implausible that there are going to be very many constantly space-faring civilizations. I have already pointed out that i don't consider it unreasonable that there be automated exploration missions, and even self-replicating automated exploration missions. As i have noted, unless one of those jokers had been by in the last century, we'd have no way of knowing. Otherwise, the entire concept stretches credulity for anyone who gives it careful thought outside the realm of "gee, wouldn't it be cool to . . . "

Enrico's specialist knowledge was in atomic and sub-atomic physics, not in the engineering of space-faring systems, nor the social ramifications of such an effort.

Oh, and the number of stars in the cosmos is not significant, only the number of stars in our galaxy--unless you suggest that one ought to think that technological civilizations would commonly deploy the resources for intergalactic travel, which would be even more absurd.

Brilliant analysis Setanta.

Superbly written too. That's the main thing.

hmmm, my post(as posted) seemed to have disappeared into the ether. SPEAKING OF WHICH. Fermi , through his work that anyhting that moves at (c) (vectoral wave /particles) could be boutiqued into doing work. I dont see that his working in directional aiming of subatomic particles at a critical mass target is any less (c) dependent than a focused radio signal or x-ray burst. In a parallel discussion,Id assert that his contributions{vis a vis (c)} were like the different contributions made to evolutionary synthesis by paleontologists , geneticsts or molecular biologists.

Einstein could be similarly classed a putz for the fact that, he really marginalized himself to the world of theoretical physics by not thinking that Quantum states were possible (EInstein had a problem with mathemeticians and statisticians in general). Yet noone has ever used the appellation of "PUTZ" when discussing Albert. However,He became his own worst enemy in later life and Fermi, had actually made the great career move of dying relatively young.

.

Kingsley Amis recommended three large tablespoons of bitter, thick-cut marmalade straight from the jar as soon as you get down stairs in the morning.

You have become obsessed with my having referred to Fermi as a putz. I was remarking only on the paradox, and the truth be told, it was Hart in about 1975 or -76 who so elaborated Fermi's (rather casual) remark into the can of worms it has become.

Fermi's remark came in 1950, when there weren't even any ICBMs yet developed. I seriously doubt that he had ever given careful consideration to the energy requirements for lift of even small but significant amounts of material and people out of the gravity well, never mind the material and energy requirements for interstellar colonizing missions. I doubt that he gave any thought to the material and energy requirements necessary to deal with the effects of "zero g" over long missions (something no one on earth yet knew about--the Soviets learned it over more than 20 years of long missions), and i doubt that he gave much consideration to the issue of shielding from cosmic radiation over long periods of time.

Basically, i'm just saying that his question is naive, which has no reference to his knowledge of or expertise in physics. It is what one might call "human nature" (in its form among other sentients) which argues against the notion that other sentient species are going to be running around doing interstellar colonization on a regular basis, given the physics of the cosmos as we know it, and what we've learned about the practical issues of space flight in the last 50 years.

I'm not saying there is someone out there, and i'm not saying that there isn't someone out there. I'm simply saying that while it is not impossible that other sentient, technological civilizations might constantly colonize other star systems, it is highly improbable, given what we know of physics in the cosmos, and the requirements of space travel.

Once again, to the question of where is everybody, i would answer that if they are out there, they are likely at home--just as we are.

Our civilizational exudates are all energy and change in heat signature. As our technologies get ever better (large arrays of atmospherically stabilized (c) scopes or mreflectors will "pick through thentrash " of civilizations. Its never been about active colonization and yes , I do take exception with your refernce to Fermi as Putz and we are mostly familiar with his "paradox" since weve argued it's origin and separate life in other threads.

In repeat, since weve invented radio (DXL abilities) , weve been able to reach out with gama specs at over 15000 light years, and weve sent a radio circumference about our own planet of D+(sorta) 200 light years.AND weve seen nothing yet. We reach another 2 Billion miles out further into space EACH DAY, so we should be catching up withh ET if they are able to play with their environment (otherwise we define sentient in its lowest means (self awareness like chimps or porpoises)

Im still considering the energy " exhaust signal" around a planet thats full of sentients. Can you imagine what a cacophany of garbage sound is being shot out into space each second?

Aricebo is capable of detecting and boosting signals of leass than 0.10^-8 watt and then boost it up) Greenbank can do even better because of its interf arrays(They make a bigger radio telescope by just moving the dishes apart along tracks and they have essentially an expandable earphone. NEw scopes are in the works and weve given the spectrum a fair spin around, so far its been quiet (except for one or two spurious signals that were still considered inconclusive) (They think that one was a gamma burst from some death star in another galaxy next door over.

PS Drake concluded that our own galaxy is capable of at least 10 statistical signal sources from sentient societies with similar energy exhausts as great or greater than us.
Ours is a galaxy 100K light years across, and theres about 10^9 galaxies in the known U. Thats a possible 10 Billion intelligent sources .
Weve got another 50000years to go before weve "Signal swept" across our galaxy, so, we can sit here and argue that ENrico Fermi should be criticized for his thinking out loud or we can get back to work and keep listening.

You don't know that.

The only data point we have is ourselves, and we have already begun to move off-planet. First the moon, then Mars and countless probes some of which have left the solar system. In addition we are working on AI, nanotechnology, self replicating machines and self evolving algorithms. Humanity is doing what all the other biology on this planet tries to do; spread and expand. Perhaps that is a unique characteristic of the biology of earth, but from what we've seen of biological evolution, I doubt it.

If one lived in the 17th century , he might finish this sentence "travel from America to China in a day"

Yet, jet travel is now commonplace.

The first quantum space engine will "rip" through the fabric of space and "hopefully" arrive at a parallel universe or "section of the folded carpet of this universe. At least that is what is hoped.
Warp driving is a theoretical possibility.

DNA studies. Comparing cells in archaic bacteria and other organisms. Extrapolation. Has anyone observed God/ID creating anything?

We don't even need super-technology to cross the distances. Even traveling at even 1/10'th the speed of light and stopping for 10,000 years on each planet to establish colonies, any race with our technology could colonize a galaxy (if they have the desire and economic stability) in a little over a million years. To put things in perspective, that could have happened 65 times just since the dinosaurs went extinct. And even if the wherewithall to do such a thing is rare... all it takes is one race with even our clunky technology and the desire, and it would have already happened. Yet we don't see any evidence of that happening. So maybe Set is right, and there isn't a single race out there in all of our galaxy with our level of technology, an economic support mechanism, and the desire to do it. But I don't believe that, so for me, the paradox still exists.

Every response i've seen here ignores the practical considerations of demanding that the sentient members of a technologically advanced civilization accept the sacrifices inherent in deploying the immense material and energy resources required to accomplish the end of constant interstellar colonization. That is the issue which i am raising, and which all of you are dodging.

With your fanatasy warp drives, are you asserting not only that it were possible, but that it could be accomplished without a huge investment in material and energy resources? All of you are ignoring what the likely response would be of those from whom a sacrifice were demanded which would not either immediately or ultimately benefit them.

I have consistently pointed out that no solution offered to explain how civilizations would expand outward in interstellar space constantly takes into consideration the resource commitment which would be required of the civilization involved. As far as i can see, the only justification which such a civilization would be able to advance which would be acceptable to all members of the civilization would be "our star is dying, we've got to get out of here." That suggests one such venture every few billion years or so, which is hardly enough to create a galactic traffic jam which we could not ignore.