Does the Bible ever contradict scientific observation?

[McCulloch]

The Bible will never contradict scientific observation, maybe confuse it with a miracle or two, .

Is this a true statement? If you disagree, please be specific as to where the writers of the Bible contradict scientific observation. Show that the passage was not intended metaphorically and that the event was not explainable by miraculous divine intervention.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 60 by Volbrigade]

until I am satisfied that it is just another anti-Christian screed,

Please explain where it is that what I write, especially in this thread, is 'anti-Christian'? From my point of view, I am pointing out that someone's claims about reality do not make sense.

I'll pass on splitting hairs with you regarding the meaning of words that are nearly synonymous, according to thesaurus.com(comprehension, and understanding). "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". And -- have you ever seen an infinite number? Can you prove one exists? If so -- please do.

I'm more or less being forced down this road when you state that
1) You do not comprehend the source and/or cause of the universe
2) You cannot give a detailed explanation as to said source/cause
3) You state that you believe "God did it" is a satisfactory explanation. So what does the word 'God' denote, such that it does not denote something else? Does 'did' refer to a specific action this 'God' undertook, and if so, what action? Does 'it' refer to a singular thing, that this 'God' acted upon?

Do you see where I am coming from? I don't know what the phrase means, and neither do you apparently! And yet, you are all too willing to promote the phrase as being the truth!

I maintain that whatever it is that caused this grand miracle of a universe is beyond our comprehension. If you disagree, then the onus is on you to share your comprehension of it.

At this moment in time, I share in the incomprehension. I don't know if there is a singular cause, or if there were multiple causes, or if the concept of causes even applies. However, note that unlike you, I do not give a simple phrase that apparently I don't understand as a placeholder, as if to pretend I do understand anyway.
When I say I do not understand, or comprehend it, I mean it. Source and/or cause of the universe = _____ and I will not attempt to fill in the blank.

I guess your point is that I claim God did it. And that I express my comprehension of God, so I am contradicting myself.

But that's not the case at all. I can comprehend -- in a limited sense; you do know that there is such a thing as "limited comprehension", don't you

Yes, I do. Which is why I note that the phrase 'God did it' is meaningless. What happened? If I asked a physicist where the iron in the earth's crust came from, he could tell me it formed from the dust in the solar system, over millions of years. He'd be able to say something less trite and more detailed to me than simply 'God did it'.

Can you expand 'God did it'? Can you give us more detail? I don't think you can. You have previously expressed that you are unable to do so, so like someone who says they cannot read French, you then cannot continue on to read Les Miserable in the original French.

what God has done,

What did God do? Can you give us more detail?

and what He has told us about what he has done

Of course, the possibility that he might be lying doesn't enter the picture does it? Or that this isn't actually God telling us these things?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 58 by rikuoamero]

So, it seems we have a semantics, AND a "comprehension" issue.

The only semantic and comprehension issue here is the refusal by some to accept common dictionary definitions for non-technical terms.

I'll pass on splitting hairs with you regarding the meaning of words that are nearly synonymous, according to thesaurus.com(comprehension, and understanding). "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". And -- have you ever seen an infinite number? Can you prove one exists? If so -- please do.

Every time I use calculus (and for me that is daily) I deal in the realm of the infinite.

Let's get back to substance, if possible.

I maintain that whatever it is that caused this grand miracle of a universe is beyond our comprehension. If you disagree, then the onus is on you to share your comprehension of it.

We can agree that, at the moment at least, there are many things that we do not understand ... do you start to see the difference between understanding and comprehension?

I guess your point is that I claim God did it.

No, the point is that with no direct evidence to support your claim you make a logical jump that completely unwarranted and unnecessary.

And that I express my comprehension of God, so I am contradicting myself.

No, I do not claim that you are contradicting yourself, I just point out that you are making an unsupported claim based on a logical falacy,

But that's not the case at all. I can comprehend -- in a limited sense; you do know that there is such a thing as "limited comprehension", don't you? -- what God has done, and what He has told us about what he has done, and what He has revealed to use through His artwork (i.e., "nature"), and the Scriptures He has inspired. But I cannot comprehend His eternal, infinite attributes, because I am temporal and finite. That is, I don't fully share His mode of existence; though I have entered the eternal life, via my justification.

Heck ... you can not do more than say you believe. There is nothing inherent in the badly flawed bible you thump, there is nothing in nature (or the nature of nature), that supports your claim of a deity. It does not logically follow that the bible would not exist without god, face it, there are many, many, such books, all of which you reject save two (OT and NT). There is nothing in nature that defies a naturalistic explanation, there are some things that are unknown at this time, but you only go from unknown to deity via god of the gaps.

Similarly: unless you can prove otherwise, you cannot comprehend whatever it is (besides God) that caused this universe; but you can comprehend -- again, in a limited sense, unless you know all there is to know about it -- many aspects of the universe we both inhabit.

Neither can you, but you have to make a case for this additional element, god. As far as I can see the invocation of a god gets you no closer, it just further complicates matters and makes it completely impossible to ever comprehend the universe around you, even in the most limited sense.

I hope that's settled.

Yes, indeedy, that should cover it for now.

Neat -- I don't read your posts anymore. They're too unpleasant. I glance at them, until I am satisfied that it is just another anti-Christian screed, with unflattering remarks about yours truly. I am weary of them. If you want to consider changing your tone, and approach, I might consider changing my mind. Same goes for H.S.

What you see is what you get ... you can always stick your fingers in your ears and put me on ignore ... your loss, not mine.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 62 by H.sapiens]

Volbrigade was replying to ,myself H so I don't think he put you on ignore.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 62 by H.sapiens]

Volbrigade was replying to ,myself H so I don't think he put you on ignore.

I was aware of that. I did not think he had. I was suggesting he do so as an option.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 58 by rikuoamero]


"While I am no great mathematician myself, I am aware that it is possible to do work with infinite series, as in a sequence of numbers that tends off towards infinity and yet work out answers in a finite series of steps.

Basically, I was refuting your claim that because God is infinite, you could spend the rest of your life writing about him and not even scratch the surface. This doesn't necessarily have to be true. "

Maybe but as you said 'tend towards infinity', how long would this
tending toward infinity take, infinity?
I'd say if you manage to scratch the surface while here on you've done jolly good*)

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 62 by H.sapiens]

Volbrigade was replying to ,myself H so I don't think he put you on ignore.

Actually, I was addressing "Neatras". And including HS:

Neat -- I don't read your posts anymore. They're too unpleasant.

Moving on:

I'm more or less being forced down this road when you state that
1) You do not comprehend the source and/or cause of the universe

Nor do you. Nor does anyone else.

2) You cannot give a detailed explanation as to said source/cause

Nor can you. Nor can anyone else.

3) You state that you believe "God did it" is a satisfactory explanation.

I never said that.

So what does the word 'God' denote, such that it does not denote something else?

A Mind, Intelligence, and Will; capable of designing, engineering, and creating a space-time dimensional environment on the scale of our universe. As opposed to -- as I've said many times -- something mindless, random, accidental.

Does 'did' refer to a specific action this 'God' undertook, and if so, what action?

Creation. And "upholding" -- "in Him, all things consist."

Does 'it' refer to a singular thing, that this 'God' acted upon?

The Heavens and the Earth.

Let me add here, re the "satisfactory" explanation:

personally, I don't think there is one.

The idea that there is a super, hyperdimensional, eternal being that made a universe for the purpose of setting human beings in them so that they could love Him, and all the crappy stuff that has followed as a result, necessitating Him becoming a man Himself, in order to rectify and redeem His creatures, and creation --

it's all absurd.

The only thing the whole tale has going for it:

it is infinitely better than anything else.

With the whole standard-issue, vague, secular, "the universe just happened", microbes-to-men fallacy being at the bottom of the explanatory barrel.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 66 by Volbrigade]

The only thing the whole tale has going for it:

it is infinitely better than anything else.

With the whole standard-issue, vague, secular, "the universe just happened", microbes-to-men fallacy being at the bottom of the explanatory barrel.

That really does sum up your position accurately, and is a perfect example of getting it exactly backwards except for the "tale" description which is correct. The last 500 or so years of scientific accomplishment (via observations and experiments, rigorous application of the formal scientific method, etc.) is what underpins and supports current understanding of how the universe may have formed and evolved over time, how life did in fact diversify (evolution) once it arose on this planet (which we don't know the details of yet ... science is still working on it but this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution), and everything else we understand about the natural world.

This understanding is infinitely better than tales written thousands of years ago by scientifically illiterate people who had no real option but to attribute things they did not understand to gods of various types. It made sense at the time, but it doesn't make any sense now. We know that microbes did in fact evolve into men over several billion years and we know a great deal about the details of how this happened. These details are out there for anyone to examine, and at present there is no better explanation than the theory of evolution. It is supported by mountains of hard evidence from the fossil record and genetics, that is internally consistent and verified from many different angles. But you ignore all of this and label it a fallacy, which is no different than claiming that Helios pulls the sun across the sky in his chariot because that is what you happen to believe is a better explanation ... against all evidence to the contrary.

So in contrast to being at the "bottom of the explanatory barrel", evolution as a description of "microbes to men" is at the absolute top of the explanatory barrel, because there is no other explanation that has stood up to the necessary scientific scrutiny over more than 150 years now, and it has yet to be falsified or proven to be invalid. The fact that you don't happen to believe it has no bearing on whether or not it is true, while the overwhelming evidence that supports it does.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 66 by Volbrigade]

The only thing the whole tale has going for it:

it is infinitely better than anything else.

With the whole standard-issue, vague, secular, "the universe just happened", microbes-to-men fallacy being at the bottom of the explanatory barrel.

That really does sum up your position accurately, and is a perfect example of getting it exactly backwards except for the "tale" description which is correct. The last 500 or so years of scientific accomplishment (via observations and experiments, rigorous application of the formal scientific method, etc.) is what underpins and supports current understanding of how the universe may have formed and evolved over time, how life did in fact diversify (evolution) once it arose on this planet (which we don't know the details of yet ... science is still working on it but this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution), and everything else we understand about the natural world.

This understanding is infinitely better than tales written thousands of years ago by scientifically illiterate people who had no real option but to attribute things they did not understand to gods of various types. It made sense at the time, but it doesn't make any sense now. We know that microbes did in fact evolve into men over several billion years and we know a great deal about the details of how this happened. These details are out there for anyone to examine, and at present there is no better explanation than the theory of evolution. It is supported by mountains of hard evidence from the fossil record and genetics, that is internally consistent and verified from many different angles. But you ignore all of this and label it a fallacy, which is no different than claiming that Helios pulls the sun across the sky in his chariot because that is what you happen to believe is a better explanation ... against all evidence to the contrary.

So in contrast to being at the "bottom of the explanatory barrel", evolution as a description of "microbes to men" is at the absolute top of the explanatory barrel, because there is no other explanation that has stood up to the necessary scientific scrutiny over more than 150 years now, and it has yet to be falsified or proven to be invalid. The fact that you don't happen to believe it has no bearing on whether or not it is true, while the overwhelming evidence that supports it does.

That's your opinion, DNG. And I appreciate your providing it.

But the fact is, science has marched on. The ToE (m2m variety) has been shown, if not proven, to be a spectacular failure. It made sense -- somewhat -- in the 19th century, but it has been obliterated by the discovery of the incredibly intricate, detailed DESIGN that is in evidence everywhere we look -- micro and macro level (e.g.: DNA, cellular nanobots; the solar eclipse).

I know it's hard to depart with long-held, cherished beliefs. Peer pressure, professional herd mentality, and one's standing within the herd. But you must, if you are genuinely seeking TRUTH.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 66 by Volbrigade]

Actually, I was addressing "Neatras". And including HS:

Ah, I see now. My mistake. I didn't see the "Neat" at the start of the paragraph.

The ToE (m2m variety) has been shown, if not proven, to be a spectacular failure. It made sense -- somewhat -- in the 19th century, but it has been obliterated by the discovery of the incredibly intricate, detailed DESIGN that is in evidence everywhere we look -- micro and macro level (e.g.: DNA, cellular nanobots; the solar eclipse).

1) DNA (genetics) confirms the Theory of Evolution, instead of falsifying it. Otherwise, you'd have to show where in the genetic record there is a bottleneck for the various species after Noah's Flood.

2) What does the solar eclipse have to do with evolution?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 68 by Volbrigade]

The ToE (m2m variety) has been shown, if not proven, to be a spectacular failure. It made sense -- somewhat -- in the 19th century, but it has been obliterated by the discovery of the incredibly intricate, detailed DESIGN that is in evidence everywhere we look -- micro and macro level (e.g.: DNA, cellular nanobots; the solar eclipse).

You are in a huge minority with that opinion I'm afraid. It is simply not true that the ToE has been "obliterated" since it was first proposed. To to contrary, it has been confirmed by so much observation and experimental evidence, the fossil record and genetics, that it has reached the exalted status of "theory." No small feat under the scientific method, but ToE has made it there and has yet to be knocked off its perch as the most plausible and experimentally confirmed explanation for the diversification of life on this planet.

That's not just my opinion, but the consensus scientific view based on the cumulative results of detailed studies and tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers over the last 150 years. Just too much evidence in favor of it, and (so far) nothing that has falsified it despite the small contingent of creationists and religious groups who still desperately try. Fortunately, that minority is far too small to make a difference.