40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Compassionist
Sage
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 298 times
Been thanked: 31 times

40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #1

Post by Compassionist »

I found this video helpful

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 349 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #2

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]
I found this video helpful
Is there a specific topic within the video you wanted to present for debate?
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

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1320
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #3

Post by Overcomer »

Would it be possible for you to take one of what you feel is a strong argument from the video and explain it briefly here, Compassionist? I think it might encourage people to respond if one example is cited.

User avatar
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 #4

Post by BeHereNow »

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

From the video –
“biblical literalists will want to interpret embarrassing verses that contradict science, not being literal but somehow being metaphorical.”

This is a false claim, and demonstrates a general non-understanding of the points of discussion.
It is false on two points, one having to do with Bible believers, and one having to do with Science.

There are many types of Bible believers, and Biblical literalists are one group. They believe the Biblical scriptures are literal, as in non-metaphorical. It is an insult to a Biblical literalist to say they interpret any passage metaphorically. To them, that borders on heresy.
There are other Bible believers who do not accept a literal translation for many scriptures, that much is true.

Now, concerning this mistaken claim about Science, it is not possible for Science to contradict any claim in the Bible, whether taken as literal, or metaphorical.
Science is not about absolutes, it is about probability.

A bedrock belief and teaching of Science is that any accepted truth of Science, could be mistaken, and at such time as there is sufficient evidence, Science with change what is accepted truth about that subject.
Any accepted truth of Science may be mistaken, not congruent with reality.
Historically, Science is in the habit of amending their beliefs about many things. Some of these changes are so significant, they cause a paradigm shift about reality itself. More commonly, with an increase in knowledge, things which are very important to some people, are determined false, after many years of accepting them as Scientific truth.

There is an account in the old testament about the earth standing still. The actual wording “So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,”.
If you ask a real Scientist, with knowledge about such things (as I have done), if that is possible, according to Science, and the answer will be something like this: “Well, according to Science, all things are possible, nothing is impossible. Some things are extremely unlikely. Bottom line, no matter how unlikely something is to have happened, the odds are some number greater than zero. No event has a zero chance of having occurred.”

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 349 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #5

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to BeHereNow in post #4]
Now, concerning this mistaken claim about Science, it is not possible for Science to contradict any claim in the Bible, whether taken as literal, or metaphorical.
But science can investigate the probability of a biblical claim and offer some approximate numerical value for that probability. If it is so close to zero that the claim is very highly unlikely to be true, then science would offer that up for people to consider. But if you allow for miracles, or a god wiping out all scientific (geological, archeological, biological, chemical, etc.) evidence of the aftermath of the event in order to hide it from future generations of scientists, then anything goes. But that's not science.

Take Noah's flood, for example. The story describes a literal global flood with water covering the tops of the highest mountains. And this had to have happened during the time humans have inhabited the planet as the entire purpose was to wipe out evil humans save 8 of them. We can say that within the bounds of science, no such flood ever happened (or the probability is so close to zero that for all practical purposes it is nearly certain it didn't happen). There isn't a source for that much water to start with; there is no geological evidence for this event happening on a global scale as described (and there would be plenty if it actually happened); the distribution of plants and land animals on Earth today could not have originated just 4400 years ago from a single point in the Middle East where the Ark supposedly landed; even if the date from biblical chronology is ignored, there is no evidence for such a flood in the last 2-3 millions years since the genus Homo first appeared; and on and on. So science my not claim an absolutely zero probability for this biblical event (or others much like it published earlier, eg. Gilgamesh), but without miracles and the like it almost certainly did not happen.
Historically, Science is in the habit of amending their beliefs about many things. Some of these changes are so significant, they cause a paradigm shift about reality itself. More commonly, with an increase in knowledge, things which are very important to some people, are determined false, after many years of accepting them as Scientific truth.
Right, but as time goes by these modifications are usually refinement rather than a complete change in understanding. The heliocentric model of our solar system isn't likely to change as we can observe in many ways that it is correct. However, the precession in the orbit of Mercury was not explained by Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics. Then General Relativity came along and improved the understanding of gravity (without altering the realm within which Newtonian gravity does provide accurate numbers) and the orbit of Mercury was explained correctly. We've learned a tremendous amount about genetics in the last few decades that has changed prior understanding and refined it. And we still have no idea what dark matter and dark energy are, and lots of other things. But there are many scientific discoveries that have shown to be valid via observation and experiment (eg. heliocentric solar systems) and for those it is most likely that only small refinements will happen over time.
If you ask a real Scientist, with knowledge about such things (as I have done), if that is possible, according to Science, and the answer will be something like this: “Well, according to Science, all things are possible, nothing is impossible. Some things are extremely unlikely. Bottom line, no matter how unlikely something is to have happened, the odds are some number greater than zero. No event has a zero chance of having occurred.”
I think most scientists (again, ignoring miracles and the like which are not within the realm of science) would answer this with some comments along the lines of "think what would happen to the orbital stabilities of the sun, Earth and moon if such a thing actually happened." The forces needed to cause such an event would likely not allow things to simply go back to normal (as far as the orbits) after a day of such a stoppage of motion. This is another example of something where the probability of it actually happening are so low (from a science and orbital stability perspective) that it is highly unlikely (without miracles, of course, which science would discard).

I think science can, and has, contradicted many biblical claims, in the sense of estimating probabilities that are very close to zero for all practical purposes.
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
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 #6

Post by BeHereNow »

[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.

But, to the point, you agree with me.
Science alone can not yield conclusions claimed in the video.

People use all kinds of things to discern reality, past and present. Tea leaves, chicken bones, and even Science.
It is not in the nature of tea leaves nor chicken bones to reveal past or future events, with absolute accuracy. It is the same with Science.

Science can make no absolute statements about past or future events.
And thus, many scientists with a string of degrees, are religionists.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 349 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #7

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to BeHereNow in post #6]
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.
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.
People use all kinds of things to discern reality, past and present. Tea leaves, chicken bones, and even Science.
It is not in the nature of tea leaves nor chicken bones to reveal past or future events, with absolute accuracy. It is the same with Science.
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.
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
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3004 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #8

Post by brunumb »

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.
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.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3004 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #9

Post by brunumb »

BeHereNow wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:42 pm Science can make no absolute statements about past or future events.
And thus, many scientists with a string of degrees, are religionists.
Absolute 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.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7144
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1273 times
Been thanked: 1504 times

Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #10

Post by Tcg »

BeHereNow wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:42 pm
Science can make no absolute statements about past or future events.
And thus, many scientists with a string of degrees, are religionists.
Can 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
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

Post Reply