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 84 by DrNoGods]

As is usually the case, the lone theist has attracted a bevy of bogies -- or is it a cloud of flies?

Let's get to it:

DNG --

The ToE has no relation to whether gods exist or not...

All due respect, but that statement is either incredibly naive; impressively ignorant; or deliberately disingenuous.

You've made many statements like the one above where there is simply an assertion without any supporting evidence...

Oh. You need an external source to support the fact of design and order and information in nature? Okay. Sure:






___________________

Neat --

nothing.

___________________

Rik --

Yes. I believe the Bible is the true account of all history. Therefore, if there is a seeming contradiction as to conclusions re the "age" -- which is, in fact, a conclusion as to the amount of radioactive isotope is present in them -- of the meteorites, and Biblical truth, then it is because there is something we don't fully understand yet. There have been countless instances in which scientific conclusions have been in opposition to the Bible; only for further discovery to reveal the Bible was accurate all along. The dinosaur soft tissue discovery, for example. The entire (m2m) ToE is presupposed on the living cell being a fairly simple construct, and not the NYC complex nano-mechanized elaboration it is. The fossil record belies slow and gradual processes. Whatever the amount of elements in meteorite samples, they will reflect Biblical truth, when properly understood.

________________

HS --

nothing.

_________________

DNG (redux -- I started typing this response, and saved as draft, hours ago. Before you're latest post -- )

Quote:
By the way, DNG -- were you able to come up with one single scientific advancement; one operational or technological innovation, which can be attributed to m2m ToE?

I didn't realize I had been given this assignment, but the very obvious scientific advancement ToE provided was a rational, testable and consistent explanation for how life diversified over time on this planet. That, alone, is sufficient to qualify as a major advancement over prior ideas of how this happened (eg. ancient creationist tales).

Opinion noted.

"Testable"? Care to reveal which tests show that a microbe is able to begin coding for nervous, muscular, circulatory systems? And the more advanced organism produced as a result begin coding for skeletal systems, eyes, feathers, wings, etc.?

Which parts of this process are "observable, repeatable, and verifiable?"

The ToE was not developed in order to provide some operational or technological innovation, but I expect there have been some that evolutionary biologists and the like could list (I'm not one of those ... I am a physical chemist and a spectroscopist by trade). There have been many advances in animal breeding (artificial selection), plant breeding, understanding of diseases and genetics, etc. that may all have benefitted from ToE, but it was not developed for that purpose, or to discredit gods or as any anti-theist tool. It was developed to explain observations, as most scientific theories are.

Translation:

"Maybe some practical good has come from the ToE. I admit, don't know of any. But it has provided an explanation of origins and history that reveal that humans are essentially no different than pigs or cows or frogs; that there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose to this life; no moral absolutes; and so we may murder babies, or any inconvenient people and/or useless eaters, without compunction; and send the message to our youths that they are without inherent value, and may therefore shoot each other without remorse for perceived slights and "disrespect", wearing the wrong colored tee shirt, etc.: while simultaneously treating each other as objects for sexual pleasure".

Lastly, when you write "m2m ToE" that is confusing. There is only one ToE that I am aware of, so I can only assume you write it this way because of the usual theist's (completely artificial) tendency to split ToE into "micro" and "macro" forms, which don't exist in the actual ToE. Presumably this delineation is done to enable them to partially believe ToE (micro changes) while still rejecting aspects of the overall theory that suggest larger changes (macro), even though the ToE has no such delineation.

Patently untrue.

No reputable scientist -- Creationist or not -- denies that organisms select out existing genetic information in response to their environments -- "natural" (and artificial) selection.

No HONEST scientist, who is informed on the matter, will defend the idea that animals turned other kinds of animals -- fish to amphibians, amphibians to mammals, mammals to men -- is anything other than an hypothesis for which their is only supporting conjecture, and no real, hard evidence.

The (m2m) ToE truly is "The Greatest Hoax on Earth".

http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-o ... /main.php

(is there a way to insert hyperlink test on this site? There must be, I've seen other do it...)

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 90 by Volbrigade]

I have no idea why the response I wrote (post 90) will neither preview nor post...?

I have it saved as Word document -- suggestions? Other than not posting it... (LOL).

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 84 by DrNoGods]

(Tried to post this earlier, and it wouldn't post -- I think I figured out the problem...)

As is usually the case, the lone theist has attracted a bevy of bogies -- or is it a cloud of flies?

Let's get to it:

DNG --

The ToE has no relation to whether gods exist or not...

All due respect, but that statement is either incredibly naive; impressively ignorant; or deliberately disingenuous.

You've made many statements like the one above where there is simply an assertion without any supporting evidence...

Oh. You need an external source to support the fact of design and order and information in nature? Okay. Sure:






___________________

Neat --

nothing.

___________________

Rik --

Yes. I believe the Bible is the true account of all history. Therefore, if there is a seeming contradiction as to conclusions re the "age" of the meteorites (which is, in fact, a conclusion as to the amount of radioactive isotope is present in them) and Biblical truth, then it is because there is something we don't fully understand yet. There have been countless instances in which scientific conclusions have been in opposition to the Bible; only for further discovery to reveal the Bible was accurate all along. The dinosaur soft tissue discovery, for example. The entire (m2m) ToE is presupposed on the living cell being a fairly simple construct, and not the NYC-complex nano-mechanized elaboration it is. The fossil record belies slow and gradual processes. Whatever the amount of elements in meteorite samples, they will reflect Biblical truth, when properly understood.

________________

HS --

nothing.

_________________

DNG (redux -- I started typing this response, and saved as draft, hours ago. Before your latest post -- )

Quote:
By the way, DNG -- were you able to come up with one single scientific advancement; one operational or technological innovation, which can be attributed to m2m ToE?

I didn't realize I had been given this assignment, but the very obvious scientific advancement ToE provided was a rational, testable and consistent explanation for how life diversified over time on this planet. That, alone, is sufficient to qualify as a major advancement over prior ideas of how this happened (eg. ancient creationist tales).

Opinion noted.

"Testable"? Care to reveal which tests show that a microbe is able to begin coding for nervous, muscular, circulatory systems? And for the more advanced organism produced as a result, to begin coding for skeletal systems, eyes, feathers, wings, etc.?

Which parts of this process are "observable, repeatable, and verifiable?"

The ToE was not developed in order to provide some operational or technological innovation, but I expect there have been some that evolutionary biologists and the like could list (I'm not one of those ... I am a physical chemist and a spectroscopist by trade). There have been many advances in animal breeding (artificial selection), plant breeding, understanding of diseases and genetics, etc. that may all have benefitted from ToE, but it was not developed for that purpose, or to discredit gods or as any anti-theist tool. It was developed to explain observations, as most scientific theories are.

Translation:

"Maybe some practical good has come from the ToE. I admit, don't know of any. But it has provided an explanation of origins and history that reveal that humans are essentially no different than pigs or cows or frogs; that there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose to this life; no moral absolutes; and so we may murder babies, or any inconvenient people and/or useless eaters, without compunction; and send the message to our youths that they are without inherent value, and may therefore shoot each other without remorse for perceived slights and "disrespect", wearing the wrong colored tee shirt, etc.: while simultaneously treating each other as objects for sexual pleasure."

Lastly, when you write "m2m ToE" that is confusing. There is only one ToE that I am aware of, so I can only assume you write it this way because of the usual theist's (completely artificial) tendency to split ToE into "micro" and "macro" forms, which don't exist in the actual ToE. Presumably this delineation is done to enable them to partially believe ToE (micro changes) while still rejecting aspects of the overall theory that suggest larger changes (macro), even though the ToE has no such delineation.

Absolutely untrue.

No reputable scientist -- Creationist or not -- denies that organisms select out existing genetic information in response to their environments -- which is the process of "natural" (and artificial) selection.

No HONEST scientist, who is informed on the matter, will defend the idea that one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal -- fish to amphibians, amphibians to mammals, mammals to men -- is anything other than an hypothesis for which there is only supporting conjecture -- and no real, hard evidence.

The (m2m) ToE truly is "The Greatest Hoax on Earth".

http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 92 by Volbrigade]

Oh. You need an external source to support the fact of design and order and information in nature? Okay. Sure:

Nice drawings ... not sure how they fit into the discussion in any way, but they were very colorful.

which is, in fact, a conclusion as to the amount of radioactive isotope is present in them.

Which does, in fact, relate to the age of the meteorite because of the known half lifes of the parent atoms. Isochron techniques, where one or more isotopes of the daughter do not arise from radioactive decay of the parent (eg. Pb-204 does not arise from decay of any U isotope), further strengthen the reliability of the dating process.

Whatever the amount of elements in meteorite samples, they will reflect Biblical truth, when properly understood.

The authors of the bible had no concept of atomic theory or what an isotope was. So nothing contained in the bible could have possibly have forecast anything related to radiometric dating. Presumably this comment is identical to the AIG article conclusion ... anything science finds that isn't consistent with bible tales cannot be right.

"Testable"? Care to reveal which tests show that a microbe is able to begin coding for nervous, muscular, circulatory systems? And for the more advanced organism produced as a result, to begin coding for skeletal systems, eyes, feathers, wings, etc.?
Which parts of this process are "observable, repeatable, and verifiable?"

I would refer you to the tens of thousands of published science papers on the subject that deal with these exact questions ... over and over and over again for about 150 years now.

But it has provided an explanation of origins and history that reveal that humans are essentially no different than pigs or cows or frogs; that there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose to this life.

Correct ... humans evolved from a great ape ancestor, reptiles did evolve from amphibians, amphibians evolved from fish, all the way back to some single-celled, simple prokaryote or something like it. There is no "meaning" for our existence as far as being human beings, but our great evolutionary advantage (a large and complex brain) allows us to form complex social groups and to create meaning and purpose for our existence. This is our own doing, not something put into place by some god being.

and so we may murder babies, or any inconvenient people and/or useless eaters, without compunction; and send the message to our youths that they are without inherent value, and may therefore shoot each other without remorse for perceived slights and "disrespect", wearing the wrong colored tee shirt, etc.: while simultaneously treating each other as objects for sexual pleasure.

NO! Morals don't come from a god, they are innate in social animals including humans (atheist or not). That was a ridiculous statement, but a common one from theists who think morals come from a holy book or a god.

No HONEST scientist, who is informed on the matter, will defend the idea that one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal -- fish to amphibians, amphibians to mammals, mammals to men -- is anything other than an hypothesis for which there is only supporting conjecture -- and no real, hard evidence.

So you're claiming that the huge majority of scientists are dishonest and uninformed? It is only a tiny minority who DON'T believe in the ToE, and many of those no doubt contribute to the nonscience garbage perpetrated on the creation.com website. Hint ... this small group aren't winning!

[H.sapiens]

No HONEST scientist, who is informed on the matter, will defend the idea that one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal -- fish to amphibians, amphibians to mammals, mammals to men -- is anything other than an hypothesis for which there is only supporting conjecture -- and no real, hard evidence.

I am an honest scientist who is well informed on the matter and I am happy to defend that idea. In fact, I can introduce you to hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of well informed and honest scientists who will be happy to also. Specifically here ( https://ncse.com/list-of-steves ) is a list of 1,416 such scientists, all of whom are honest, well informed, and who all happen to be named "Steve" and who have signed the following statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence.

Since "Steves" account for about 1% of the US population we may safely assume that on the order of 1,416,000 well informed and honest scientists would be happy to put the lie to your specious claim.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 92 by Volbrigade]

All due respect, but that statement is either incredibly naive; impressively ignorant; or deliberately disingenuous.

It is possible to write a computer program that simulates evolution, and then let it run. The existence of a simulated evolution does not mean that I, the author of such a program (a god if you'll allow me to borrow the term) does not exist.

For the umpteenth time on this website - the Theory of Evolution explains the diversity in life-forms once they already exist. It makes no claims about how life first got started. None. It could have been a god, it could have been aliens, it could have been any one of a number of proposed explanations.

There have been countless instances in which scientific conclusions have been in opposition to the Bible; only for further discovery to reveal the Bible was accurate all along.

Show me. Show me where 'further discoveries' were done via the scientific method, with no pointing to the Bible as giving the 'correct' answer. Do you disavow what AiG did in that quote, where they dropped their scientifically obtained results because the Bible says the 'correct' answer is something else?

The entire (m2m) ToE is presupposed on the living cell being a fairly simple construct,

Nope

Whatever the amount of elements in meteorite samples, they will reflect Biblical truth, when properly understood.

So it doesn't matter what numbers one can get when performing measurements. It doesn't matter that AiG admitted they got results in the billions of years range.

You're still not doing science.

that there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose to this life; no moral absolutes; and so we may murder babies, or any inconvenient people and/or useless eaters, without compunction

This is a hangup from yourself Volbrigade. The ToE is NOT an instruction book on morality. It does not speak AT ALL about the above. You may not have realized it but even myself, someone who accepts the ToE, does not murder babies. Is that what you think ToE is? A licence to murder babies?
Besides, if this is one of the problems you genuinely have, what about the Bible, which directly and explicitly sanctions baby killing? I see God telling Joshua to lead his armies into enemy cities and to wipe everything and everyone out.
Bit hypocritical don't you think?

and send the message to our youths that they are without inherent value, and may therefore shoot each other without remorse for perceived slights and "disrespect", wearing the wrong colored tee shirt, etc.: while simultaneously treating each other as objects for sexual pleasure."

Show me where in the ToE it sanctions any of this? This is something obviously made up by people like yourself.

The (m2m) ToE truly is "The Greatest Hoax on Earth".

http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php

As explained in my conversations with you, I (and probably the other people here talking with you, I don't know about their official stance on the matter) cannot accept anything published by CMI (or similar groups), not as long as they have their Statements of Faith where they promise to discard any scientifically obtained results if (or should I say when) they conflict with the Bible.
Their 'research' is tainted. Think of it in legal terms. Imagine if this were a court case. The judge would have to throw out the case, because the prosecution has admitted to tampering with evidence, to throwing some of it out because their holy book says the defendant is guilty.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 95 by rikuoamero]

...cannot accept anything published by CMI (or similar groups)

What these sites have done is to provide anti-ToE theists a stock set of arguments to make so they don't have to think for themselves or make any effort to understand the science behind things like radiometric dating, geologic column, etc. And it seems that the more the pincers close in on proving by hard measurement and science that their arguments are completely full of holes, the more outlandish they have to get in their claims.

Much like the flat earth guy that rolled through here recently. His claim was so demonstrably false with 0.00000% chance of being correct that he had to come up with completely outlandish statements to try and support it (eg. gravity is a hoax, planets and stars are just tin foil plates placed on radio towers, all NASA images are CGI, etc.). The CMI and AIG people aren't quite at that point yet, but seem to be headed in that direction. I expect they will continue with their god-of-the-gaps stuff as well all the way to the point where those gaps are finally closed completely ... by real science.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 93 by DrNoGods]

Quote:
Oh. You need an external source to support the fact of design and order and information in nature? Okay. Sure:

Nice drawings ... not sure how they fit into the discussion in any way, but they were very colorful.

Allow me to help your understanding. As I scientist, I'm sure you can appreciate the precision involved with generating a self-replicating molecule that is a code for living things, including human beings, and the brains within those human beings that are capable of understanding how that code operates, and of the proteins (themselves consisting of precise combinations of amino acids) that link to form the unique instructions for every living human (as well as all other living things) via their 4-"letter" combinations.

You ask me to believe that such a construct is possible in a universe that is mindless, unguided, and random? That this exquisite arrangement came into existence absence intelligence and design?

I say -- with all due respect -- that you're a brick shy of a load.

Otherwise --

It makes no difference how many scientists believe in m2m evolution. Relatively few work in a field directly related to it. Most are doing actual science. The guy who is utilizing science in the pursuit of developing the next generation of smartphone, computer, aircraft, TV, or automobile, may indeed "believe in (m2m) evolution." But it is a religious belief, indoctrinated into him via the secular culture he inhabits, and reinforced by the high priests of the religion in the education industry (ironically, in virtually the same way a shallow understanding of "the Christian religion" was formerly indoctrinated into the denizens of a society dominated by institutional "Churchianity").

But many who have studied the matter closely, and who have the courage to be honest in their evaluation, have concluded that the conditions necessary for life to arise by random processes (and yes, that IS part of the theory, rik. To say otherwise is to engage in a duplicitous dodge), and then to proceed to "evolve" upwards through an endless series of fortuitous "copying errors", are so statistically remote as to be beyond "absurd", by several categorical factors. Something on the lines of, oh, say, flipping a coin once a second for a million years, and it coming up "heads" every time. And many -- but by no means all -- of those who have reached that conclusion, are now affiliated with groups like ICR, AIG, and CMI.

Btw -- are you serious? A computer program designed to illustrate how m2m could work, is an argument AGAINST Intelligent Design? Does the phrase "rolling on the floor, laughing my >beep< off", mean anything to you?

The evidences for a young creation are numerous, and continually growing. Of course, if you say "I refuse to accept them, because I don't agree with the premises of those that provide them..." -- well, that's your prerogative.

I appreciate them (the scientists who provide the YEC evidences), because being, almost to a man, former secular-atheo-Whateverists, they provide that understanding of the data/material (e.g., the AIG article); as well as the rebuttal of it, from a Biblical view.

And I know, as sure as I'm sitting here, that there is one from a Biblical perspective, concerning the meteors. And it will reinforce the YEC view, just as the presence of C-14 in diamonds, and soft tissue in dinosaurs, does.

I know this by FAITH.

Ironically, my devotional reading this morning just happened to be Hebrews 11, the great chapter on faith, which is why I mention it. "There are no coincidences in God's Kingdom."
____________________

By Faith We Understand
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 93 by DrNoGods]

Quote:
Oh. You need an external source to support the fact of design and order and information in nature? Okay. Sure:

Nice drawings ... not sure how they fit into the discussion in any way, but they were very colorful.

Allow me to help your understanding. As I scientist, I'm sure you can appreciate the precision involved with generating a self-replicating molecule that is a code for living things, including human beings, and the brains within those human beings that are capable of understanding how that code operates, and of the proteins (themselves consisting of precise combinations of amino acids) that link to form the unique instructions for every living human (as well as all other living things) via their 4-"letter" combinations.

You ask me to believe that such a construct is possible in a universe that is mindless, unguided, and random? That this exquisite arrangement came into existence absence intelligence and design?

I say -- with all due respect -- that you're a brick shy of a load.

Why it is such a big deal? You know there are self replicating molecules that exist that make copies of themselves...all by themselves? There's a ligase in yeast that will make copies of itself in ordinary tap water. It doesn't need the yeast there, it just needs some amino acids in the solution. It's not alive in any way, shape, or form, but it breaks down into two subunits and each half begins building again. It's a chemical property of the molecule. There are many such self replicating molecules that we know of. The SunY three subunit self-replicator, the Ghadiri peptide, the hexanucleotide self-replicators, etc.

How are you going to help his understanding if you don't even realize what is chemically possible in plain old water?

It makes no difference how many scientists believe in m2m evolution. Relatively few work in a field directly related to it. Most are doing actual science. The guy who is utilizing science in the pursuit of developing the next generation of smartphone, computer, aircraft, TV, or automobile, may indeed "believe in (m2m) evolution." But it is a religious belief, indoctrinated into him via the secular culture he inhabits, and reinforced by the high priests of the religion in the education industry (ironically, in virtually the same way a shallow understanding of "the Christian religion" was formerly indoctrinated into the denizens of a society dominated by institutional "Churchianity").

The guy generating the next generation of technology isn't a scientist. That's an engineer. Engineers take science and use it to create useful things for everyday life. Please be sure to remember this delineation in the future.

On another note, one does not have to work in a field in order to be able to comment intelligently on something within that field. We often see the baseless charge that scientists that research the theory of evolution are not doing "actual science". Yet if I ask you where, specifically, are the errors in all the research done in the last 150 years on the topic, can you provide us with a detailed explanation to fulfill that request? Or will we get more charges of conspiracy.

We've seen the conspiracy angle before of course at this website. In fact, here;s something I wrote in 2016 that fits nicely right here:

"I would like to add, separately, that I hope you see the rather interesting double standard that cultists have in their dealing with science. They never claim science is wrong as it relates to their cell phones, or GPS, or computers, or medicines, or any time they use a plane or a car or a boat to get somewhere. Why? Because it doesn't contradict with their ancient manuscripts. But suddenly you get into the theory of evolution, and science is now some totally inaccurate mass conspiracy, incapable of getting anything right as it relates to the age of the planet or the progression of life.

It's a ludicrous self serving ploy.

Science cannot be both a highly effective and efficient form of investigation into the universe, AND a self-serving conspiracy whose main goal is hiding the truth about a particular god being that just so happens to be the basis of belief for the people claiming foul and evil intentions."

But many who have studied the matter closely, and who have the courage to be honest in their evaluation, have concluded that the conditions necessary for life to arise by random processes (and yes, that IS part of the theory, rik. To say otherwise is to engage in a duplicitous dodge), and then to proceed to "evolve" upwards through an endless series of fortuitous "copying errors", are so statistically remote as to be beyond "absurd", by several categorical factors. Something on the lines of, oh, say, flipping a coin once a second for a million years, and it coming up "heads" every time. And many -- but by no means all -- of those who have reached that conclusion, are now affiliated with groups like ICR, AIG, and CMI.

The odds as presented to you at the websites run by your creationist masters are not calculated right. This information has been presented to them before, but they don't change their websites. Google it to find out...

The evidences for a young creation are numerous, and continually growing. Of course, if you say "I refuse to accept them, because I don't agree with the premises of those that provide them..." -- well, that's your prerogative.

I'm not familiar with these evidences for a young Earth. What is your favorite one?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 97 by Volbrigade]

You ask me to believe that such a construct is possible in a universe that is mindless, unguided, and random? That this exquisite arrangement came into existence absence intelligence and design?

I say -- with all due respect -- that you're a brick shy of a load.

You should try to educate yourself on what the ToE actually is, because it is clear you have absolutely no clue.

(and yes, that IS part of the theory, rik. To say otherwise is to engage in a duplicitous dodge)

The origin of life is NOT part of ToE ... never was and never will be. Again, try to educate yourself on the subject. Making a claim like that just further demonstrates, without any doubt, that you have no understanding of ToE. You can't just redefine ToE willy nilly with an erroneous statement like that and expect to be taken seriously.

The evidences for a young creation are numerous, and continually growing.

More nonsense that you can't back up with a single piece of evidence or facts, and of course didn't offer any, as usual. The evidence for a 4.6 billion year old earth is overwhelming, while the evidence for a young "creation" is nonexistent. This has been firmly established by real science, not the amateurish pseudo-science that supporters of a young earth trot out in opposition, and that couldn't even place in a grade school science fair.

I know this by FAITH.

Faith has no place in science, but is consistent with your position of believing bible tales over actual science despite the success of real science in explaining the natural world, and the total failure of the biblical myths and tall tales.

I say -- with all due respect -- that you're a brick shy of a load.

Why bother with the "with all due respect" part? That really did tee up a response relating to being zero bricks shy of a load, but (with all due respect, of course) I'll leave that out.