40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
- Has thanked: 770 times
- Been thanked: 135 times
- BeHereNow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Has thanked: 2 times
Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible
Post #11[Replying to BeHereNow in post #6]
Why quibble. They have similarities.
There are people who believe Science can tell them, with absolute certainty (in their belief) things about the past and present. In fact, Science can not make any absolute statements about the material world. I believe I know the meaning of superstition. If someone believes something that experts recognize is not congruent with reality, but it is instead a piece of folklore, that is not only not supported by evidence, but verified evidence shows it cannot he true, that is superstition.
Again, you agree with me. Science and the Bible two separate realms. Science can make no meaningful declarations about most things in the Bible.Yes, but miracles are not within the realm of science, so science says nothing about such things. No probability can be assigned to the likelihood of an event, or the truth of a biblical claim, if the supernatural is allowed to be part of the discussion. Miracles and science are not compatible.
"disagree they are in the same category"
Science is very different from tea leaves and chicken bones and the like. So I very much disagree with the suggestion that they are in the same category. Science has many centuries of answering questions about how nature works, while tea leaves and chicken bones are probably 50/50 as neither are more than a wild guess by whoever is doing the "reading." I understand there are people who believe these sorts of things work, just as there are people who still believe water can be found by "witching" (dowsers), or that warts can be talked off. Superstition will never go away.
Why quibble. They have similarities.
There are people who believe Science can tell them, with absolute certainty (in their belief) things about the past and present. In fact, Science can not make any absolute statements about the material world. I believe I know the meaning of superstition. If someone believes something that experts recognize is not congruent with reality, but it is instead a piece of folklore, that is not only not supported by evidence, but verified evidence shows it cannot he true, that is superstition.
- BeHereNow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Has thanked: 2 times
Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible
Post #12Unless of course one wants to he accurate in describing reality, and there are miracles.brunumb wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:43 pmThe concept of miracles is only relevant when one wants to invoke supernatural intervention in an event. Unless an event has zero probability of occurring naturally, then no matter how small the probability of its outcome it can occur naturally and no supernatural intervention is necessary.BeHereNow wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:42 pm [Replying to DrNoGods in post #5]
There seems to be no way to ask this politely, can I assume you understand how Christian's define "miracle"?
Ya, extremely unlikely. If such things were easy, they would not be miracles.
Surely you agree.
Many things that "are not necessary", occur non the less.
Surely you agree with that.
- BeHereNow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Has thanked: 2 times
Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible
Post #13Yes, all of that is fine. It is not Science, it is critical thinking.brunumb wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:52 pmAbsolute statements are not necessary. We can make informed decisions and predictions based on our current knowledge. If we discover that we have been wrong in our understanding of gravity, for example, then planes will not start falling out of the sky as a consequence of that error. Our current theories are the best explanations we have for observations, and if they are not absolutely correct that will not undo everything we currently know and understand. The scientific method has a great track record and has resulted in huge advancements that cannot simply be dismissed because of religious biases.
There are many fine race horses, with an excellent track record. And some of them, virtually all of them, lose. Many intelligent people, with wonderful critical thinking skills, bet against that horse with the wonderful track record, and sometimes they win.
You offer a false dilemma.
- BeHereNow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Has thanked: 2 times
Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible
Post #14My PhD relatives who are religionists are not such 'because' Science is not about absolutes. I know of none who are religionists for this reason.Tcg wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:56 amCan you provide any evidence that this is the reason why, "many scientists with a string of degrees, are religionists." Additionally, are you claiming that religion can provide, "absolute statements about past or future events." If, so, can you provide evidence to support this claim?
Tcg
I certainly did not claim it (non absolutes) was a reason why - but please, make that case, so I can refute it.
This I can assure you. If Science provided absolute evidence, that it could refute Biblical claims, they would not be Bible believers.
Critical thinking leads to many beliefs that are simply not provable.
My critical thinking tells me that when I was in the kitchen, I ate a candy bar and destroyed the evidence. I can provide no evidence to support that claim. Because I experienced it, you will not be able to convince me my belief is false.
We all have knowledge about certain things. I can probably get many people to agree with me about most things, but I will never get everyone to agree on all things.
On my list of 'how to identify reality', really, really low on the list, is providing evidence you find acceptable.
I suspect it is the same with you. Are you concerned that your evidence for your beliefs is agreeable to me?
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible
Post #15To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible
Post #16Your suspicion is a complete failure. Of course given that I've not addressed my "beliefs", it is odd that you'd present them as an argument.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible
Post #17The issue is not how many people agree with you, but rather what evidence you can provide to support your claims. So far you've presented none.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible
Post #18How on earth is a sequence of races being won by a particular horse in any way related to the vast field that is encompassed by scientific research? Your analogy demonstrates nothing. How has the scientific method failed? Do you have a better method of distinguishing the real from the imaginary? If so, present it.BeHereNow wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:55 am There are many fine race horses, with an excellent track record. And some of them, virtually all of them, lose. Many intelligent people, with wonderful critical thinking skills, bet against that horse with the wonderful track record, and sometimes they win.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible
Post #19Not at all. Can you provide any evidence of miracles that have been irrefutably demonstrated to have occurred?BeHereNow wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:49 amUnless of course one wants to he accurate in describing reality, and there are miracles.brunumb wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:43 pm The concept of miracles is only relevant when one wants to invoke supernatural intervention in an event. Unless an event has zero probability of occurring naturally, then no matter how small the probability of its outcome it can occur naturally and no supernatural intervention is necessary.
Surely you agree.
I don't even know what point you are trying to make here. I said that no matter how small the probability of an event, if it is not zero then it can occur naturally and no supernatural intervention is necessary. That's not the same as saying that things that are not necessary will not occur. The occurrence of a highly improbable event does not constitute a miracle.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.