Science And The Bible

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Science And The Bible

Post #1

Post by DavidLeon »

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept as a philosophy would have an influence in on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle.

Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture, a direct challenge to the Church itself, and so bringing about the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

For debate, what significance does modern science bear upon an accurate understanding of the Bible? How important is science to the modern day Bible believer and where is there a conflict between the two?
I no longer post here

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #111

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #110]
Take for example comets:

Comets can not exist longer than 10,000 years and yet there are all kinds of comets around. Those that believe in the atheistic world view believe that there is some sort of oort cloud out beyond the orbit of Pluto where there are billions of comets just waiting to be perturbed and head towards the sun.
First, an atheistic world view has nothing whatsoever to do with comets. The Oort Cloud was not proposed because of any religious beilefs, or because someone lacked a belief in gods (ie. an atheist). There is no connection between the hypothesis of an Oort Cloud and religion, or anyone's world view. Second, what makes you thiink that comets can't exist longer than 10,000 years, regardless of how/where they formed?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3394
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 941 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #112

Post by Miles »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 4:20 pm There is no conflict between the Bible and Science. The conflict is between the Biblical world view and an atheistic world view.
First of all, there's no such thing as an "atheistic worldview." Atheism is about one thing, and one thing only, god, and a disbelief in his existence. PERIOD! To suggest otherwise is to exhibit extreme ignorance. , , , , But go right ahead.

Secondly, as for there being "no conflict between the Bible and Science," how many scientists believe Joshua 10: 12-13? which says


12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


Other than conflicted fundamentalist Christian scientists perhaps, the number is -0-

And where is the science that says bats are birds (I leave it to you to look this up for yourself)

And where is the science that says the Sun goes around the Earth (same)

.

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #113

Post by DavidLeon »

Miles wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 8:35 pmAnd where is the science that says bats are birds (I leave it to you to look this up for yourself)

And where is the science that says the Sun goes around the Earth (same)

.
Here is a brief lesson in Hebrew that will be of some help. The word used at Leviticus 11:13 is ohph, which is sometimes translated incorrectly as birds, and sometimes as fowl. It is important to note that the English word fowl applied not only to birds, but all winged flying creatures such as insects and bats. So, although the word fowl in translation is accurate it is often misunderstood due to the fact that today the English word fowl is somewhat more limited than it used to be, applying to birds only.

The Hebrew word for bat is ‛ata·leph.
The Hebrew word for flying creature or fowl (as in all flying creatures including birds, bats, and insects) is ‛ohph.
The Hebrew word for birds in general is tsip·pohr′.
The Hebrew word for birds of prey specifically is ‛a′yit.

The Hebrew word she′rets is drawn from a root word that means to "swarm" "or teem." In noun form applies to small creatures to be found in large numbers. (Exodus 8:3 / Psalm 105:30) In scripture it first applies to the initial appearance on the fifth creative day when the waters began to swarm with living souls. Genesis 1:20

Fowl do not swarm in the waters.

The law regarding clean and unclean things demonstrates that the term applies to aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10) winged creatures, including bats and insects (Leviticus 11:19-31 / Deuteronomy 14:19) land creatures such as rodents, lizards, chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31) creatures traveling on their "belly" and multi legged creatures (Leviticus 11:41-44).

The English word fowl is primarily used today to refer to a large or edible bird. The Hebrew term ohph, which is derived from the verb fly, applied to all winged or flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-22) So the Hebrew (ohph) is not so limited in usage as the English word fowl much like the old English cattle applied to sheep, cows, pigs, etc.

It isn't about taxonomy it is about language and translation.

I think I've also seen you make similar claims about insect legs?

Insect Legs

The Bible critic will sometimes claim that the Bible isn’t scientific because it says that insects have four legs.

Leviticus 11:20-23 - Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to you. Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth. These are the ones of them you may eat of: the migratory locust according to its kind, and the edible locust after its kind, and the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you.

In 11:22 a the Hebrew word arbeh is translated “locust” and is the migratory locust, fully developed and winged. The Hebrew word yeleq refers to the creeping, wingless locust, the immature undeveloped locust. (Joel 1:4) and the Hebrew term solam refers to the edible locust as in 11:22 b. That is a leper locust rather than a flier. The Greek akris is rendered “insect locust” and “locust.” (Matthew 3:4; Revelation 9:7)

The leaper insect has two pairs of wings, four walking legs and two much longer leaper legs.

Does the Bible say that insects have four legs when it says that they are 'going on all fours?' The answer of course is no. The writers of the Bible - in this case, Moses - were not scientist of entomology and botany, but we are talking about their dietary restrictions. They ate the insects. They would have noticed how many legs they had and would have been capable of making the distinction between a leaper insect that actually had six legs but walked on four, or in fact would not have been far removed from using the expression even when considering six legged insects who walk as if on all fours like a four legged creature. We would use the term walking on all four legs in application to a two legged human doing the same.

The Bible And Pi

Bible skeptics often conclude that the Bible writers of 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the circular molten sea in the courtyard of Solomon's temple was ten cubits from brim to brim and that "it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it" can't be correct because it is impossible to have a circle with these two values.

Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more.

The molten sea was 10 cubits (15 feet) in diameter and it took a line of 30 cubits (45 feet) to encompass it. A ratio of one to three was adequate for the sake of a record.

And rabbits?

Rabbits And Cud

The Hebrew word translated as hare is arneveth, it is a gnawing animal of the Leporidae family and is closely related but larger than the rabbit. It differs from the rabbit in that its young are usually not born in an underground burrow, are fully furred, active and have open eyes at birth. The average length, is about 2 ft (0.6 m) and are grayish or brownish.

It has a divided lip, cocked tail, long ears, hind limbs and feet. They can attain a speed of as much as 43 mph (70 km/hr). The Law of Moses prohibited them as food, and referred to them as a chewer of the cud. (Leviticus 11:4, 6; Deuteronomy 14:7) .

Though Hares and rabbits don't have a multi-chambered or multi-parted stomach and do not regurgitate their food for re-chewing, characteristics associated with the scientific classification of ruminants or cud chewers, the Hebrew term used for chewing literally means "bringing up."

So the modern scientific classification was not the basis of what the Israelites in Moses' day understood 'cud chewing' to be.

The Imperial Bible-Dictionary: "It is obvious that the hare does in repose chew over and over the food which it has some time taken; and this action has always been popularly considered a chewing of the cud. Even our poet Cowper, a careful noticer of natural phenomena, who has recorded his observations on the three hares which he had domesticated, affirms that they 'chewed the cud all day till evening.'" - Edited by P.Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 700.

Franois Bourliere (The Natural History of Mammals, 1964, p.41): - "The habit of 'refection,' or passing the food twice through the intestine instead of only once, seems to be a common phenomenon in the rabbits and hares. Domestic rabbits usually eat and swallow without chewing their night droppings, which form in the morning as much as half the total contents of the stomach. In the wild rabbit refection takes place twice daily, and the same habit is reported for the European hare .... It is believed that this habit provides the animals with large amounts of B vitamins produced by bacteria in the food within the large intestine."

Mammals of the World (by E.P. Walker, 1964, Vol. II, p. 647) - "This may be similar to 'chewing the cud' in ruminant mammals."

Nowhere, as far as I know, does any translation of the Bible say the sun goes around the earth.
I no longer post here

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #114

Post by EarthScienceguy »

First, an atheistic world view has nothing whatsoever to do with comets. The Oort Cloud was not proposed because of any religious beilefs, or because someone lacked a belief in gods (ie. an atheist). There is no connection between the hypothesis of an Oort Cloud and religion, or anyone's world view. Second, what makes you thiink that comets can't exist longer than 10,000 years, regardless of how/where they formed?
Well, all the experts seem to think that comets only last about 10,000 years.
The JFCs are active over a lifetime of about 10,000 years or ~1,000 orbits whereas long-period comets fade much faster. Only 10% of the long-period comets survive more than 50 passages to small perihelion and only 1% of them survive more than 2,000 passages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#:~: ... 20passages.
Theists do not need millions of years in their world view, atheists do. For the solar system to be millions of years old there has to be an almost limitless supply of comets somewhere. So out of the belief that the Solar system is billions of years old, the oort cloud theory was fabricated. The same is true of Mercury, for the solar system to be billions of years old Mercury had to be totally different than it is today otherwise Mercury would have not magnetic field. So some fable had to be fabricated to give Mercury a magnetic field.

These fabricated stories are throughout the atheistic worldview.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3394
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 941 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #115

Post by Miles »

DavidLeon wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:38 am
Miles wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 8:35 pmAnd where is the science that says bats are birds (I leave it to you to look this up for yourself)

And where is the science that says the Sun goes around the Earth (same)

.
Here is a brief lesson in Hebrew that will be of some help. The word used at Leviticus 11:13 is ohph, which is sometimes translated incorrectly [Gee, how convenient to your point] as birds, and sometimes as fowl.
DavidLeon wrote: It is important to note that the English word fowl applied not only to birds, but all winged flying creatures such as insects and bats. So, although the word fowl in translation is accurate it is often misunderstood due to the fact that today the English word fowl is somewhat more limited than it used to be, applying to birds only.
Right now I'm looking at my 10 pound, 2,059 page Random House Dictionary of the English Language: The Unabridged Edition, and nowhere under the entry for "fowl" does it say, or even imply, the word denotes anything but a bird.

And so what? Of the 59 bibles I checked for Leviticus 11;13 "birds" shows up 39 times whereas "fowl" shows up only 10 times. That's just about four times as many bibles that believe "birds" is the proper translation. So I can't bring myself to care that 17% of the Bibles use the term "fowl."

DavidLeon wrote:It isn't about taxonomy it is about language and translation.
Right, and 39 out of 59 Bibles, 66%, feel "birds," with all its connotations and denotations, is the proper translation. Want to go on about what 10 bibles say? Fine, but include me out.

DavidLeon wrote: I think I've also seen you make similar claims about insect legs?

Insect Legs

The Bible critic will sometimes claim that the Bible isn’t scientific because it says that insects have four legs.
No, I've said the Bible says grasshoppers walk on only four legs, just as you've pointed out below. (BTW, locusts are a temporary form of nine species of grasshoppers)


Leviticus 11:20-23 - Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to you. Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth. These are the ones of them you may eat of: the migratory locust according to its kind, and the edible locust after its kind, and the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you.

And all but one of the 59 Bibles uses the the word "grasshopper" or 'locust," which is DARBY that uses a foreign word.
DavidLeon wrote: In 11:22 a the Hebrew word arbeh is translated “locust” and is the migratory locust, fully developed and winged. The Hebrew word yeleq refers to the creeping, wingless locust, the immature undeveloped locust. (Joel 1:4) and the Hebrew term solam refers to the edible locust as in 11:22 b. That is a leper locust rather than a flier. The Greek akris is rendered “insect locust” and “locust.” (Matthew 3:4; Revelation 9:7)

The leaper insect has two pairs of wings, four walking legs and two much longer leaper legs.
Doesn't matter what you've said here because when walking, grasshoppers use all six legs, a well known fact, and the Bible says they don't, a well known mistake.


DavidLeon wrote:And rabbits?
Rabbits And Cud

Though Hares and rabbits don't have a multi-chambered or multi-parted stomach and do not regurgitate their food for re-chewing, characteristics associated with the scientific classification of ruminants or cud chewers, the Hebrew term used for chewing literally means "bringing up."

So the modern scientific classification was not the basis of what the Israelites in Moses' day understood 'cud chewing' to be.
So what? Bibles today say that rabbits or hares (both lagomorphs) chew the cud. Lagomorphs don't chew cud because they don't produce it.
DavidLeon wrote:The Imperial Bible-Dictionary: "It is obvious that the hare does in repose chew over and over the food which it has some time taken; and this action has always been popularly considered a chewing of the cud. [Popularity means bupkis] Even our poet Cowper, a careful noticer of natural phenomena, who has recorded his observations on the three hares which he had domesticated, affirms that they 'chewed the cud all day till evening.'" - Edited by P.Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 700.[Gee, a noticing poet. How convincing]


Franois Bourliere (The Natural History of Mammals, 1964, p.41): - "The habit of 'refection,' or passing the food twice through the intestine instead of only once, seems to be a common phenomenon in the rabbits and hares. Domestic rabbits usually eat and swallow without chewing their night droppings, which form in the morning as much as half the total contents of the stomach. In the wild rabbit refection takes place twice daily, and the same habit is reported for the European hare .... It is believed that this habit provides the animals with large amounts of B vitamins produced by bacteria in the food within the large intestine."
Know what they chew? It's poop. Not cud. And if they can't produce cud they don't chew cud. Do they? *sigh* And just to note, bibles today should either not make the claim or make note that "hares chew cud" isn't true. But here an FYI:
Image
DavidLeon wrote: Nowhere, as far as I know, does any translation of the Bible say the sun goes around the earth.
Sure it does.

Joshua 10:12-14
12 On that day the Lord gave Israel the victory against the Amorites. Joshua stood before all the Israelites and said to the Lord:

Sun, stop over Gibeon.
Moon, stand still over the Valley of Aijalon.”

13 So the sun did not move, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies. This story is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky. It did not move for a full day. 14 That had never happened before, and it has never happened again. That was the day the Lord obeyed a man. The Lord really was fighting for Israel!

A thing can't stop unless it's moving. And if the Sun moves, just where would it move and then stop at noon (middle of the sky) if it wasn't moving around the Earth?


.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #116

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Miles in post #112]
First of all, there's no such thing as an "atheistic worldview." Atheism is about one thing, and one thing only, god, and a disbelief in his existence. PERIOD! To suggest otherwise is to exhibit extreme ignorance. , , , , But go right ahead.
Sure there is.

An Atheist does not believe that God exists. Therefore everything in the universe must be able to be explained without a creator. The definition of worldview is "a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world." Atheists have a conception that there is no God in the universe. Everyone has a worldview or a way that they view the universe and what it contains or does not contain.

An Atheist must be able to explain everything we see in the universe in some type of uniformitarian way. Comets, the magnetic field of the planets, and life all must be explained by the processes that we see acting today. But that is not the case. Every time that observations are made that contradict the uniformitarian worldview (or Atheists worldview) some sort of non-uniformitarian catastrophe is dreamt up.


Secondly, as for there being "no conflict between the Bible and Science," how many scientists believe Joshua 10: 12-13? which says


12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
It depends on the Scientist's worldview. You cannot prove that this two-time event did not happen did not actually happen. The God of the Bible certainly has the power to perform this miracle. He is omnipresent, meaning that he exists at every point in the universe and at every moment in time all at the same time. So acting on every point and particle in space needed to make this happen is certainly possible for Him to do.

And where is the science that says bats are birds (I leave it to you to look this up for yourself)
If you classify animals by their locomotion and skeletal (indo or exo skeleton) structure bats and birds would be in the same category.
And where is the science that says the Sun goes around the Earth (same)
Where in the Bible does it say that the sun does not go around the Earth?

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3394
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 941 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #117

Post by Miles »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 9:55 am If you classify animals by their locomotion and skeletal (indo or exo skeleton) structure bats and birds would be in the same category.
I've ignored your previous remarks because they're filled with simply too much misunderstanding to bother with. However, the remark above is simply to ignorant to let pass.

You make the point that bats deserve to be considered birds simply because one could classify them by their locomotion and skeletal (indo or exo skeleton). This is like asserting that green coloring crayons and watermelons could be placed in the same category because both are the same color and can be held in one's hand. How about classifying steam locomotives and skateboards in the same category because both have wheels and travel on the ground. Or the ocean and popsicles could be classified in the same category because both are principally made of water and are subject to evaporation? Sure they could, but it would be pretty of stupid wouldn't it.

EarthScienceguy wrote:
Miles wrote:And where is the science that says the Sun goes around the Earth (same)
Where in the Bible does it say that the sun does not go around the Earth?
Are you truly suggesting that the Sun does go around the Earth? Really!!!

In any case, as I told DavidLeonin, in Joshua 10:13 it says "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."
A thing can't stop unless it's moving. And if the Sun moves, just where would it move and then stop at noon (middle of the sky) if it wasn't moving around the Earth?


.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3394
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 941 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #118

Post by Miles »

Miles wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:07 pm
EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 9:55 am If you classify animals by their locomotion and skeletal (indo [sic] or exo skeleton) structure bats and birds would be in the same category.
(The correct prefix is "endo," not "indo." )

I've ignored your previous remarks because they're filled with simply too much misunderstanding to bother with. However, the remark above is simply to ignorant to let pass.

You make the point that bats deserve to be considered birds simply because one could classify them by their locomotion and skeletal (indo or exo skeleton). This is like asserting that green coloring crayons and watermelons could be placed in the same category because both are the same color and can be held in one's hand. How about classifying steam locomotives and skateboards in the same category because both have wheels and travel on the ground. Or the ocean and popsicles could be classified in the same category because both are principally made of water and are subject to evaporation? Sure they could, but it would be pretty of stupid wouldn't it.

EarthScienceguy wrote:
Miles wrote:And where is the science that says the Sun goes around the Earth (same)
Where in the Bible does it say that the sun does not go around the Earth?
Are you truly suggesting that the Sun does go around the Earth? Really!!!

In any case, as I told DavidLeonin, in Joshua 10:13 it says "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."
A thing can't stop unless it's moving. And if the Sun moves, just where would it move and then stop at noon (middle of the sky) if it wasn't moving around the Earth?


.

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #119

Post by DavidLeon »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 4:20 pm There is no conflict between the Bible and Science. The conflict is between the Biblical world view and an atheistic world view. Both world views use all the same data, but they interpret it according to their world view.

Take for example comets:

Comets can not exist longer than 10,000 years and yet there are all kinds of comets around. Those that believe in the atheistic world view believe that there is some sort of oort cloud out beyond the orbit of Pluto where there are billions of comets just waiting to be perturbed and head towards the sun. The oort cloud has never been observed it is taken by faith. They also have to take by faith that Mercury was once much much larger with a liquid core like the Earth's. You see there are many things like this that those that believe in an atheistic world view have to take by faith. Usually, it is explained away with another belief that science will eventually know all the answers to our questions.

The best science can do is make and record observations and then show that these observations are repeatable and then explain why they are repeatable.

Anything outside of recorded observation is not science it is belief.

Evolution is a belief. These great morphological changes that evolutionist talk about as fact takes "millions" of years to form.
Though I think the most prevalent criticism of the Bible is rooted in a clash of worldviews, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no clash between the Bible and Science. Creation, the global deluge, evolution and the supernatural are aspects of the Bible which clash with current science. Then there is also a separate category of criticism which may have more to do with interpretation than the Bible itself, that is theology rather than the Bible. The immortal soul, hell, spirit and metaphorical applications of celestial phenomenon mistaken for literal events. Though I might classify evolution as a belief I don't think that personal classification relevant because according to science it isn't.
Last edited by DavidLeon on Wed Aug 26, 2020 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I no longer post here

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #120

Post by DavidLeon »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 4:17 pm
First, an atheistic world view has nothing whatsoever to do with comets. The Oort Cloud was not proposed because of any religious beilefs, or because someone lacked a belief in gods (ie. an atheist). There is no connection between the hypothesis of an Oort Cloud and religion, or anyone's world view. Second, what makes you thiink that comets can't exist longer than 10,000 years, regardless of how/where they formed?
Well, all the experts seem to think that comets only last about 10,000 years.
The JFCs are active over a lifetime of about 10,000 years or ~1,000 orbits whereas long-period comets fade much faster. Only 10% of the long-period comets survive more than 50 passages to small perihelion and only 1% of them survive more than 2,000 passages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#:~: ... 20passages.
Theists do not need millions of years in their world view, atheists do. For the solar system to be millions of years old there has to be an almost limitless supply of comets somewhere. So out of the belief that the Solar system is billions of years old, the oort cloud theory was fabricated. The same is true of Mercury, for the solar system to be billions of years old Mercury had to be totally different than it is today otherwise Mercury would have not magnetic field. So some fable had to be fabricated to give Mercury a magnetic field.

These fabricated stories are throughout the atheistic worldview.
And the speed of light? I'm not sure if you intend to imply the young earth creationism or not, but the Bible doesn't support it so a Bible based form of theism, though not what I would call dependent upon a worldview of millions of years, would find it difficult to explain why the light from celestial objects would be visible after having obviously taken so long to get here.
Last edited by DavidLeon on Wed Aug 26, 2020 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I no longer post here

Post Reply