Bible vs. Science

@fresco,

Yes I do! Why?

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Do you even know how stupid that sounds.

I understand stupid quite well.

Yeh, but do you know how stupid the argument you presented is? That's the question.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Not stupid at all, if you take the time to fully absorb what he said.

Bullshit. If you treat the words with such ambiguity that days are interchangeable with eons, then the words have no meaning.

The argument that Days don't mean Days is just a rationalization, and a desperate one at that, because by undermining the meaning of the words, you undermine the inherent veracity of the whole story. You can't have it both ways, either the words mean what they say, or the whole story is meaningless.

Call it what you will. Fitting things into what you want them to mean does not put more meaning into it. Even science continually changes according to new theories and findings.

Since there would not have been anybody to record these events, at the time, how do you know what later writers meant or did not mean? Why is is so important to determine whether a day was 24 hours or 5000 years? Putting a literal spin on things only detracts.

It seems that science and change it's mind as new evidence comes to the fore, but the bible is pigeon holed forever.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Why is is so important to determine whether a day was 24 hours or 5000 years?

Because it highlights a nice example of the mind-boggling bullshit that's written in the Bible, as well the length to which the faithful will stretch the meaning of its words so they don't have to admit it's bullshit.

Just reread what you just said in the quote above. If you find it perfectly normal that a day should be not 24 hours long but 24*365*5000 = 1,051,2000,000 hours, and if you shake your head at people who think that the bible's admitted error by a factor of 1,825,000 is important, you have officially given up on the concept that words have meaning.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Since nobody was there to witness the event. No matter what the cause. Everything is pure speculation.

Personally, I have no qualms about admitting anything as long as it can be proven that I am wrong. You have not done that. You have just provided your opinion.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Quote:

Since nobody was there to witness the event. No matter what the cause. Everything is pure speculation.

AHHHH, I was wondering when the "arms in the air" argument would see the light of day.
From calcs of the sidereal day and compared with rhythmite deposits in AUstralia(cyclical deposits that , like tree rings display a time based sedimentary layering), we are 96% certain that the preCambrian day was about 20+ hours long.
That, however, has NOTHING to do with the length of time that the earth has been here and the times between specific events in the planet. SInce the isotopic clock is independeent of the length of a sidereal day. Isotopic time is based upon a constant decay in a standard cgs system, and has withstood all sorts of scientific scrutiny. In other words , we have very robust proof about the age of the earth and the duration of time between ages and epochs. Its a tool we use with great xconfidence and count on every day(how do YOU account for all the oil weve been finding ,luck?) . No Bible thumping ignoramus can mount anything that even closely approximates a proof of their concept that the "Bible is inerrant" when it comes to geotime and earth events .
To equivocate that a "day may not be a 24 hour day" is total eyewash and lacking of anything but Midieaval beliefs in mythology . How the Creationists can live in this world of technology while their heads are so deeply implanted up their asses is a mystery that Ive never been able to solve. Festinger would have loved to write about evangelical Christians instead of UFO cultists.
You have , staring in front of you, proof, truth, evidence, mathematics, and experiments that use the standard time scale. I have no idea how you turn off your brain to deny it. PS, we havent even begun to discuss gravity and relic magnetism.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

I don't have to prove that you're wrong, since that is not my charge against you. My charge against you is that you can't be reasoned with. Statements have to be distinct for reason to act on them. Therefore, when the difference between 24 hours and 47,450,000 doesn't even matter to you, there is just nothing there to reason about. Your position is so meaningless it cannot even rise to the level of being wrong.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Putting a literal spin on things only detracts.

Only when you're not trying to learn anything.

0 Replies

Logic is the core of science. Religion is illogical. Ergo, science and religion are contrary to eachother and cannot co-exist.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Not stupid at all, if you take the time to fully absorb what he said.

Bullshit. If you treat the words with such ambiguity that days are interchangeable with eons, then the words have no meaning.

The argument that Days don't mean Days is just a rationalization, and a desperate one at that, because by undermining the meaning of the words, you undermine the inherent veracity of the whole story. You can't have it both ways, either the words mean what they say, or the whole story is meaningless.

Actually, it is common, even in our day to refer to a period of time as a single day. We did in our grandparents' day and we do in our day.

The bible refers to all the days of creation as a single day in Genesis 2:4.

And in several places the bible refers to a day as a thousand years or as a single year. The problem you have is your fear of allowing a single point so you may hold on to your patronizing arrogance

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Farmer, Farmer, Farmer,
Read the first chapter or 3 of Genesis. Did you note that the heavens and earth were in existence before the first creative day?
While it is true that many nominal christians believe creation took place in literal days, the bible does not support their error.

If you are asking me to defend that error, think again. Think of straw man.

I would never suggest that bible accounts could help you in your natural science research; the bible was not written for intellectuals. It was written so regular folks could understand why we have war and crime and sickness and death and what God intends to do about it.

0 Replies

@AnswerMan,

You wrote,

Quote:

The reason I believe the bible is because it has proven its self over over again through science and fulfilled prophecies.

But according to your reference list you also believe that "non-believers go to hell" , don't you ?

Quote:

Yes I do! Why?

...because you cannot logically say what THE reason is!

In many cases the Inquisition only needed to show "the instruments of torture" and the victim had no mind of his own. Twisted Evil

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
If you add up the years, the mid 1970's marked 6000 years since the creation of Adam, which took place somewhere in the 6th day.

So now I am to believe that the BIBLE is an accurate census?. Ill bet that there were tons of "begats" goin on between Moses and now cause we have quite a few DNA, Flouride residue, Carbon 14, and alpha track dates that count up to roughly 30000 years back. Could it be that the "begat track" in the Bible is purely metaphor?

Yet, recorded history is little more than 5000 years old. . .

1 Reply

@AnswerMan,

fresco wrote:

Answerman,
You wrote,

Quote:
The reason I believe the bible is because it has proven its self over over again through science and fulfilled prophecies.

But according to your reference list you also believe that "non-believers go to hell" , don't you ?

AnswerMan wrote:

Yes I do! Why?

Another case where the credulity of the 'believer' derails the truth.

The bible does not support the concept of eternal punishment.

To the contrary, regarding the time of death: "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish." (Psalm 146:4)

1 Reply

@fresco,

Of course he can't answer that and he'd really rather hack into network computers to play pranks on fellow students. I suppose it's more honorable than the cut-and-paste without credit plagerism but any one of us could have a problem with both.

What God dictated to his stenographers to write in the Bible apparantly endured what happens with gossip and rumors. It's elaborated on or distorted. The Bible is a conglomoration of writings cut-and-pasted the old fashioned way by those Constantine appointed with his oversight -- the mind of a pagan Roman emperor. The Bible ended up in shambles with writing stuck in with little to no thought for contradictions and and a huge percentage thrown out by a group of editors to be approved by a person who still believes in multiple dieties. A horse is still a camel designed by a committee. In this case, the final word was the responsibility of a ruler who was neither fish nor fowl. A mutated hybrid in the Bible thumper's new found interpretation of evolution.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote

Quote:

The bible does not support the concept of eternal punishment.

Quote:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

"Matthew 10:28

Quote:

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.

"Mark 9:44

But of course...I'm only an atheist! Very Happy

1 Reply

@fresco,

neologist,

In the event of attempted "learned rebuttal", the last paragraph here is significant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Yet, recorded history is little more than 5000 years old. .

Is that your final answer? If so, the implications are for "human" populated world that fr exceeds 6000Yrs. "Recorded history" is but small fraction of the human race

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Since nobody was there to witness the event. No matter what the cause. Everything is pure speculation.
AHHHH, I was wondering when the "arms in the air" argument would see the light of day.
From calcs of the sidereal day and compared with rhythmite deposits in AUstralia(cyclical deposits that , like tree rings display a time based sedimentary layering), we are 96% certain that the preCambrian day was about 20+ hours long.
That, however, has NOTHING to do with the length of time that the earth has been here and the times between specific events in the planet. SInce the isotopic clock is independeent of the length of a sidereal day. Isotopic time is based upon a constant decay in a standard cgs system, and has withstood all sorts of scientific scrutiny. In other words , we have very robust proof about the age of the earth and the duration of time between ages and epochs. Its a tool we use with great xconfidence and count on every day(how do YOU account for all the oil weve been finding ,luck?) . No Bible thumping ignoramus can mount anything that even closely approximates a proof of their concept that the "Bible is inerrant" when it comes to geotime and earth events .
To equivocate that a "day may not be a 24 hour day" is total eyewash and lacking of anything but Midieaval beliefs in mythology . How the Creationists can live in this world of technology while their heads are so deeply implanted up their asses is a mystery that Ive never been able to solve. Festinger would have loved to write about evangelical Christians instead of UFO cultists.
You have , staring in front of you, proof, truth, evidence, mathematics, and experiments that use the standard time scale. I have no idea how you turn off your brain to deny it. PS, we havent even begun to discuss gravity and relic magnetism.

Ahh, but you mistake me for a creationist.

I am simply suggesting that those who take everything as literal in the bible are the ones with their "heads so deeply implanted up their asses".

I am not, by the way, a bible thumper nor an ignoramus (there may be some debate on the second) and I do not consider the bible as inerrant.

You seem to be getting frustrated, my friend. Don't worry....your precious science is not in danger of being usurped.

Hell, I was president of our science club in school.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

God gave Adam and Eve the Rosetta Stone DVD's for every language. Unfortunately, there were no players or TV's to use them so their descendants began chiseling history into stones. Unfortunately, they kept eroding away for a thousand years wiping out any historic record. That's where mankind depended on "word of mouth" which is a euphemism for rumor and gossip. That brings up the question of what language Adam and Eve spoke in. Esperanto?

BTW, Yahweh returned to carving things in stone himself with the Ten Commandments.

1 Reply

Bible vs. Science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know