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
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7144
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1272 times
Been thanked: 1504 times

Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #21

Post by Tcg »

BeHereNow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:04 am
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".
This is the claim you made:
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.
Please note your words, "And thus..."


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
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 #22

Post by BeHereNow »

Tcg wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:27 am
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
You seem to have gotten lost.
My claims:
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.

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 #23

Post by BeHereNow »

brunumb wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:55 am
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.
That is neither here nor there to me.

Let me remind you of my claims, which no one seems to have even disagreed with, let alone present an argument.
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.

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 #24

Post by BeHereNow »

brunumb wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:09 am
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.
You have not disagreed with my original claims.
You are off on tangents that have nothing to do with my original claims.

Science has nothing to say about supernatural events, because it's perview is the natural world.

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 #25

Post by BeHereNow »

Tcg wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:04 pm
BeHereNow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:04 am
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".
This is the claim you made:
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.
Please note your words, "And thus..."


Tcg
Am I to assume that if my words might have several meanings, you get to decide which meaning must be accepted?
Or, is it your claim only one meaning is possible?

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7144
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1272 times
Been thanked: 1504 times

Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #26

Post by Tcg »

BeHereNow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:03 pm
Tcg wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:04 pm
BeHereNow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:04 am
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".
This is the claim you made:
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.
Please note your words, "And thus..."


Tcg
Am I to assume that if my words might have several meanings, you get to decide which meaning must be accepted?
Or, is it your claim only one meaning is possible?
I presented your claim which is what you asked me to do. If you are claiming it isn't a claim then please explain how it isn't.


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
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 #27

Post by BeHereNow »

[Replying to Tcg in post #26]

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

You say the meaning of these words must contradict my other claim:
My PhD relatives who are religionists are not such 'because' Science is not about absolutes.

They are religionists for reasons they believe are well justified. They arrived at this decision completely, totally, without any consideration of Science.
Science had nothing, zero, ninguna, nada zilch, to do with their views on religion.
Neither did tea leaves, nor chicken bones.
If, in the course of living their Bible believing life, Science provided absolute proof that events in the Bible were not possible, they would no longer be Bible believers.
Nothing about Science has affected their religious beliefs, one way or another. It could have, if Science were capable of making absolute claims about the material world, and these contradicted their beliefs, but it can not.

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 #28

Post by brunumb »

BeHereNow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:33 pm Nothing about Science has affected their religious beliefs, one way or another. It could have, if Science were capable of making absolute claims about the material world, and these contradicted their beliefs, but it can not.
Not necessarily. The vast majority of believers are the product of indoctrination so that no reasoning was involved in the inculcation of their beliefs. Once someone has swallowed their religion hook, line and sinker, it's only a small step to becoming a science denier.
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 #29

Post by BeHereNow »

brunumb wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:32 pm
BeHereNow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:33 pm Nothing about Science has affected their religious beliefs, one way or another. It could have, if Science were capable of making absolute claims about the material world, and these contradicted their beliefs, but it can not.
Not necessarily. The vast majority of believers are the product of indoctrination so that no reasoning was involved in the inculcation of their beliefs. Once someone has swallowed their religion hook, line and sinker, it's only a small step to becoming a science denier.
And if you had some evidence, that would be helpful.

Then you would need to show why those who were indoctrinated with Science, hook line and sinker, and staunch religion deniers, were categorically any different than their counterparts.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2103
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1346 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: 40 Scientific Inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #30

Post by benchwarmer »

BeHereNow wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 5:22 am
brunumb wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:32 pm
BeHereNow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:33 pm Nothing about Science has affected their religious beliefs, one way or another. It could have, if Science were capable of making absolute claims about the material world, and these contradicted their beliefs, but it can not.
Not necessarily. The vast majority of believers are the product of indoctrination so that no reasoning was involved in the inculcation of their beliefs. Once someone has swallowed their religion hook, line and sinker, it's only a small step to becoming a science denier.
And if you had some evidence, that would be helpful.

Then you would need to show why those who were indoctrinated with Science, hook line and sinker, and staunch religion deniers, were categorically any different than their counterparts.
"indoctrinated with Science" is an oxymoron. The actual scientific method requires one to support any claims with actual data. It also requires replacing hypotheses that don't fit new data such that all reproducible data is covered.

In other words, science encourages people to be skeptical of scientific claims and fully embraces debunking of bad claims. One is asked only that methodology and data are provided so others can confirm or deny one's findings.

How does this stack up with most religion? When I was a Christian I was told to "just have faith" when the evidence clearly did not support the religious claim.

Chose your poison. You can either be free (and encouraged) to validate claims and discard the ones that don't fit reality or you can just "have faith" when holy book claims fail to comport with reality.

Post Reply