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.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 66 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).

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.

There is one. For humans, anyway. The Y chromosome is similar, worldwide. There are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world.

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

[/quote]

As I stated, they are both clear evidence of meticulous design and order:

"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)."

[Volbrigade]

[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.

Actually, there is just too much evidence AGAINST it.

There is no closer analogy to "the Emperor's New Clothes", than the spectacle of the scientific community over the last several generation, feverishly torturing the data in an attempt to make it confess that God doesn't exist (to keep "the Divine foot out of the door" -- Richard Lewontin). So, if an obvious crippling blow to the entire fanciful m2m paradigm -- such as the discovery of soft tissue in "65 myo" dinosaur bones -- comes to light, then ridiculous excuses are rushed forward. "Iron preserved the soft tissue!" For 65 million years?

Yeah. Right.

And by the way -- where in the world ARE those transitional forms? Every building permit request should include the removal of heaps of them. They should be EVERYWHERE.

It takes great courage to stand for truth in the presence of a pervasive cultural lie. That is why the Soviets built gulags -- for those who did then.

It takes great courage. And it is something that many have faced the backlash for, alone. But that is changing. There is a growing number of scientists who, if they don't accept the Biblical account of origins, have arrived at the conclusion that materialist m2m is simply not feasible. Nor does the evidence support it.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 72 by Volbrigade]

Oh? A growing number? Relative to the number of scientists who actually understand evolution?

Prove it.

[H.sapiens]

The ToE (m2m variety) has been shown, if not proven, to be a spectacular failure.

That comes as news to the scientific world. Have you published your finding anywhere?

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).

DNA supports the conventional model of evolution, in fact, the finding concerning the chromosomal fusion that was a critical step from chimp-like ancestor to human belies your claim.

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.

Actually, there is just too much evidence AGAINST it.

There is no closer analogy to "the Emperor's New Clothes", than the spectacle of the scientific community over the last several generation, feverishly torturing the data in an attempt to make it confess that God doesn't exist (to keep "the Divine foot out of the door" -- Richard Lewontin). So, if an obvious crippling blow to the entire fanciful m2m paradigm -- such as the discovery of soft tissue in "65 myo" dinosaur bones -- comes to light, then ridiculous excuses are rushed forward. "Iron preserved the soft tissue!" For 65 million years?

It appears you've not followed that discovery, you are embarrassingly poorly informed. Spend some quality time with Google and get back to us.

Yeah. Right.

And by the way -- where in the world ARE those transitional forms? Every building permit request should include the removal of heaps of them. They should be EVERYWHERE.

If every hard part left a fossil that would be true, but fossilization is the exception not the rule.

It takes great courage to stand for truth in the presence of a pervasive cultural lie. That is why the Soviets built gulags -- for those who did then.

It also takes great courage to wear a dunce cap and sit in the corner, but neither is evidence of a knowledge of the truth, only of commitment to a widely dismissed view.

It takes great courage. And it is something that many have faced the backlash for, alone. But that is changing. There is a growing number of scientists who, if they don't accept the Biblical account of origins, have arrived at the conclusion that materialist m2m is simply not feasible. Nor does the evidence support it.

Actually, the evidence supports the evolutionary view and belies your claim that there are a growing number of scientists who reject the materialist view (e.g., support for the materialist view has now reached 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences).

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 71 by Volbrigade]

As I stated, they are both clear evidence of meticulous design and order:

So...you make a statement that hints that the recent solar eclipse has something to do with falsifying evolution, and when I ask what exactly one has to do with the other, your response is...to repeat word for word what you originally said?

Let me guess - the fact that once every few decades the moon and sun line up in such a way to be seen from Earth is evidence of design and order?
Have you thought about the opposite? Doesn't the fact that the moon and sun don't line up 99.99999% of the time act as evidence for not-design?
You might as well be saying that the watch that correctly tells the time twice a day is a well designed watch.

There are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world.

Which terminate in Mitochrondial Eve, who lived between 99 to 148 thousand years ago, well outside the age you say is told to us from the Bible.

By the way, are you going to answer the latest questions I put for you in the Ask a User thread?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 72 by Volbrigade]

Actually, there is just too much evidence AGAINST it.

Care to provide any unbiased links (Ie. not anything from creation.com or Answers in Genesis)?

There is no closer analogy to "the Emperor's New Clothes", than the spectacle of the scientific community over the last several generation, feverishly torturing the data in an attempt to make it confess that God doesn't exist (to keep "the Divine foot out of the door" -- Richard Lewontin). So, if an obvious crippling blow to the entire fanciful m2m paradigm -- such as the discovery of soft tissue in "65 myo" dinosaur bones -- comes to light, then ridiculous excuses are rushed forward. "Iron preserved the soft tissue!" For 65 million years?

Yeah. Right.

First, there is a lot more to this soft tissue issue than you imply. It has been found in many more samples than just the original T. Rex, and you can read much more about it via some Google searches as HS suggested. But to save you some work, here is just one easy to read summary:

https://letterstocreationists.wordpress ... ft-tissue/

Note this paragraph in the conclusion section (italics mine):

"That scientists are unable at present to give a complete account of the mechanism and trajectory of the preservation of modified proteins in the dinosaur bone pores is not some unique, embarrassing case. This situation arises constantly in the course of scientific discovery. At the leading edge of most fields of physical science are always some observations which cannot currently be completely accounted for, and which call for further investigation. That is precisely how science advances. For instance, in 1896 when uranium compounds were found to cause exposure of photographic plates wrapped in black paper, there was no mechanistic explanation. Scientists did not throw up their hands and say, We cant explain this, so modern science is worthless! (or in your case "Yeah. Right"). No, they kept making observations, and kept learning more, and eventually realized that the nuclei of atoms were emitting radiation that could penetrate black paper."

Second, are you trying to suggest that studies of ToE are aimed at proving that gods don't exist? ToE isn't for or against the existence of any god.

Nor does the evidence support it.

That is demonstrably false. Supporting evidence abounds in the real science world.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 76 by DrNoGods]

Quote:
Actually, there is just too much evidence AGAINST it.

Care to provide any unbiased links (Ie. not anything from creation.com or Answers in Genesis)?

It is naive to think that there are "unbiased" sources of information on this topic.

That is precisely how science advances. For instance, in 1896 when uranium compounds were found to cause exposure of photographic plates wrapped in black paper, there was no mechanistic explanation. Scientists did not throw up their hands and say, We cant explain this, so modern science is worthless!

With the ToE, we are not talking about science. We are talking about philosophy, religion, presuppositions, biases, and worldviews.

There is simply nothing -- other than wishful thinking -- to support the idea that dirt organized itself into simple living things. There is no evidence to suggest that DNA could increase in information and complexity on the order needed to turn from a microbe to a microbiologist, no matter how much time is given for such a process. There is no evidence to suggest one kind of animal turned into another. It is a consensus of wishful thinking. And if the ToE was discarded tomorrow, as it should be, it would make not the slightest bit of difference in the world of operational science and technology, as it has not contributed one single advancement in those areas. That's because it can't. And that's because it is fundamentally untrue.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 71 by Volbrigade]

As I stated, they are both clear evidence of meticulous design and order:

So...you make a statement that hints that the recent solar eclipse has something to do with falsifying evolution, and when I ask what exactly one has to do with the other, your response is...to repeat word for word what you originally said?

Yes. I took it that you neither understood, nor comprehended, the analogy I provided. So I tried to make it clearer.

Let me guess - the fact that once every few decades the moon and sun line up in such a way to be seen from Earth is evidence of design and order?

Yes. Only it's more frequent than "every few decades". Every 18 months or so, on average, I believe. Often over ocean expanses or uninhabited regions.

Have you thought about the opposite? Doesn't the fact that the moon and sun don't line up 99.99999% of the time act as evidence for not-design?
You might as well be saying that the watch that correctly tells the time twice a day is a well designed watch.

All watches are designed. Even well designed ones will stop -- these days, simply because the battery has died.

The orbits of of the earth and moon have not stopped. Nor the solar system's steady orbit around the the center of the galaxy. All represent an incredibly complex arrangement of gravitational attractions. The reason eclipses don't happen more frequently is that the moon's orbit is not on the same plane with the earth's equator, which reflects the earth's axial tilt relative to the Sun's -- among a slew of other factors.

That is why they -- eclipses -- are exceptional. The fact that they occur at all... and that we can see them... I've said this about 20 times, it seems. I can't imagine how one can have any other attitude other than "yes. Exceptional. Amazing."

A lack of wonder...

There are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world.

Which terminate in Mitochrondial Eve, who lived between 99 to 148 thousand years ago, well outside the age you say is told to us from the Bible.

Prove it.

By the way, are you going to answer the latest questions I put for you in the Ask a User thread?

Well, I've been a little preoccupied elsewhere. But yes -- I intend to return to that thread.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 77 by Volbrigade]

With the ToE, we are not talking about science. We are talking about philosophy, religion, presuppositions, biases, and worldviews.

There is simply nothing -- other than wishful thinking -- to support the idea that dirt organized itself into simple living things. There is no evidence to suggest that DNA could increase in information and complexity on the order needed to turn from a microbe to a microbiologist, no matter how much time is given for such a process. There is no evidence to suggest one kind of animal turned into another. It is a consensus of wishful thinking. And if the ToE was discarded tomorrow, as it should be, it would make not the slightest bit of difference in the world of operational science and technology, as it has not contributed one single advancement in those areas. That's because it can't. And that's because it is fundamentally untrue.

OK ... that diatribe speaks for itself I think. You have your head firmly in the sand with fingers in both ears, while science (including the ToE) will continue to correctly explain things in the natural world without resort to imaginary beings and baseless claims of what they can do.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 78 by Volbrigade]

That is why they -- eclipses -- are exceptional. The fact that they occur at all... and that we can see them... I've said this about 20 times, it seems. I can't imagine how one can have any other attitude other than "yes. Exceptional. Amazing."

A lack of wonder...

Who here has expressed a 'lack of wonder'? What I and others are expressing is a disagreement that because an eclipse is rare, therefore it points to design.

Prove it.

I'm reluctant to do this, because as I explained over and over in the Ask a User thread, you quite frankly do not do science. You have a book that, according to you, says the Earth is 6,000 years old. According to the SoF you and Creation Ministries have adopted, no answer obtained via the scientific method is accepted if it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible.
I could be the world's greatest scientist, with PhDs and Masters out the wazoo, and produce paper after paper after paper on the subject of Mitochondrial Eve, and how she is somewhere in that aforementioned age-range...and when it comes to yourself, it would be all for naught. The number "I" come up with is rejected outright because according to you, your book has the 'correct' answer and Nothing. Is. Allowed. To. Contradict. It.