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
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

Post by BeHereNow »

[Replying to BeHereNow in post #6]

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.
Again, you agree with me. Science and the Bible two separate realms. Science can make no meaningful declarations about most things in the Bible.

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.
"disagree they are in the same category"
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.

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 #12

Post by BeHereNow »

brunumb wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:43 pm
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.
Unless of course one wants to he accurate in describing reality, and there are miracles.
Surely you agree.
Many things that "are not necessary", occur non the less.
Surely you agree with that.

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 #13

Post by BeHereNow »

brunumb wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:52 pm
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.
Yes, all of that is fine. It is not Science, it is critical thinking.

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.

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 #14

Post by BeHereNow »

Tcg wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:56 am
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
My PhD relatives who are religionists are not such 'because' Science is not about absolutes. I know of none who are religionists for this reason.
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?

Online
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 #15

Post by Tcg »

BeHereNow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:19 am
My PhD relatives who are religionists are not such 'because' Science is not about absolutes.
Well, I'm glad to see you deny the claim you made previously. Of course the question remains as to why it was made in the first place.


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

Online
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 #16

Post by Tcg »

BeHereNow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:19 am
I suspect it is the same with you. Are you concerned that your evidence for your beliefs is agreeable to me?
Your 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

Online
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 #17

Post by Tcg »

BeHereNow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:19 am I can probably get many people to agree with me about most things, but I will never get everyone to agree on all things.
The 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

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3000 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #18

Post by brunumb »

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.
How 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.
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: 3000 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #19

Post by brunumb »

BeHereNow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:49 am
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.
Unless of course one wants to he accurate in describing reality, and there are miracles.
Surely you agree.
Not 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 am Many things that "are not necessary", occur non the less.
Surely you agree with that.
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.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

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 #20

Post by BeHereNow »

Tcg wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:04 am
BeHereNow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:19 am
My PhD relatives who are religionists are not such 'because' Science is not about absolutes.
Well, I'm glad to see you deny the claim you made previously. Of course the question remains as to why it was made in the first place.


Tcg
Sorry?
What claim would that be?
Please, do not "interpret".

Post Reply