Does the Bible ever contradict scientific observation?

[McCulloch]

The Bible will never contradict scientific observation, maybe confuse it with a miracle or two, … .

Is this a true statement? If you disagree, please be specific as to where the writers of the Bible contradict scientific observation. Show that the passage was not intended metaphorically and that the event was not explainable by miraculous divine intervention.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 80 by rikuoamero]

... no answer obtained via the scientific method is accepted if it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible.

A perfect, and absolutely remarkable, example of this kind of thinking is in this article on Answers in Genesis:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... eteorites/

They go through a very good summary of the dating of meteorites and show via an extensive table, and graphs, complete with many references, how incredibly consistent the measurements are using various isotopes and samples, from 1965 - 2011. Much of the discussion even seems to be leading to the fact that this is so consistent there could not possibly be any doubt that the 4.6 billion year ages are correct.

Then, after all that, they create some scheme relating to "primordial material", while discarding any accuracy in radiometric dating, and claim that since we "know" that creation is only 6,000 years old more work is needed to reconcile these old erroneous radiometric dates as they simply cannot be correct (purely because they would contradict the biblical creation story and chronology):

"Therefore, even though most of these groups of meteorites yield a consistent Pb-Pb, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb-calibrated isochron age of 4.55–4.57 Ga, that cannot be their true real-time age, which according to the biblical paradigm is only about 6000 real-time years."

Utterly amazing.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 77 by Volbrigade]

With the ToE, we are not talking about science. We are talking about philosophy, religion, presuppositions, biases, and worldviews.

There is simply nothing -- other than wishful thinking -- to support the idea that dirt organized itself into simple living things. There is no evidence to suggest that DNA could increase in information and complexity on the order needed to turn from a microbe to a microbiologist, no matter how much time is given for such a process. There is no evidence to suggest one kind of animal turned into another. It is a consensus of wishful thinking. And if the ToE was discarded tomorrow, as it should be, it would make not the slightest bit of difference in the world of operational science and technology, as it has not contributed one single advancement in those areas. That's because it can't. And that's because it is fundamentally untrue.

OK ... that diatribe speaks for itself I think. You have your head firmly in the sand with fingers in both ears, while science (including the ToE) will continue to correctly explain things in the natural world without resort to imaginary beings and baseless claims of what they can do.

Nonsense.

I am just operating from a different set of presuppositions than you.

I am assuming the Bible is God's revealed, propositional truth.

You are assuming it is not.

But the thing is -- it IS.

Which is why the conclusions you assent to are so erroneous. Microbes to men? Preposterous.

The same pretty much goes for our friend rik, here.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 80 by rikuoamero]

... no answer obtained via the scientific method is accepted if it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible.

A perfect, and absolutely remarkable, example of this kind of thinking is in this article on Answers in Genesis:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... eteorites/

They go through a very good summary of the dating of meteorites and show via an extensive table, and graphs, complete with many references, how incredibly consistent the measurements are using various isotopes and samples, from 1965 - 2011. Much of the discussion even seems to be leading to the fact that this is so consistent there could not possibly be any doubt that the 4.6 billion year ages are correct.

Then, after all that, they create some scheme relating to "primordial material", while discarding any accuracy in radiometric dating, and claim that since we "know" that creation is only 6,000 years old more work is needed to reconcile these old erroneous radiometric dates as they simply cannot be correct (purely because they would contradict the biblical creation story and chronology):

"Therefore, even though most of these groups of meteorites yield a consistent Pb-Pb, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb-calibrated isochron age of 4.55–4.57 Ga, that cannot be their true real-time age, which according to the biblical paradigm is only about 6000 real-time years."

Utterly amazing.

Indeed. A very good article. Thanks for linking.

The salient point is: was radioactive decay part of the original, pre-Fallen creation? Or was it introduced, when God subjected it to "the bondage of decay" (for man's sake).

We probably cannot know for certain, this side of eternity.

It will require scientists interested in truth, and not just upholding an anti-theist bias, to produce the best possible answers in that regard.

By the way, DNG -- were you able to come up with one single scientific advancement; one operational or technological innovation, which can be attributed to m2m ToE?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 82 by Volbrigade]

I am assuming the Bible is God's revealed, propositional truth.

You are assuming it is not.

But the thing is -- it IS.

What does the ToE have to do with the Bible being the revealed truth of a god, or not? There are religious groups who are happy to accept the ToE as a valid scientific theory, and they believe it is simply the mechanism their god chose to manage the diversification of life forms. The ToE has no relation to whether gods exist or not, and it has no goal to remove gods from the equation as you claimed earlier. So I'm not sure why you want to make a connection between ToE and the Bible, the revealed truth of a god, and all of that. They are not related.

Also, this is the Science and Religion debate section. Rule #5 for this section states:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

You've made many statements like the one above where there is simply an assertion without any supporting evidence, such as external links that support the claim, references to published papers, books, etc., or anything of the like. Just a statement of opinion that you present as fact simply because you believe it (eg. "But the thing is -- it IS" above). You can't legitimately claim that the ToE is bogus and has no supporting evidence for it when there are 150+ years of observation and experiment, and tens of thousands of peer-reviewed published scientific papers that support and confirm it. The number of opposition papers and experiments that question it is miniscule in comparison, and so far none have stood up to scientific scrutiny (ie. the ToE has never been falsified).

If you only want to wax philosophic on the subject, there are other sections of this website that are more appropriate for that kind of thing.

[Neatras]

I am just operating from a different set of presuppositions than you.

I am assuming the Bible is God's revealed, propositional truth.

You are assuming it is not.

But the thing is -- it IS.

This is the absolute best you can contribute to the discussion? This is the substance you bring to a debate forum?

That isn't a debate argument. That is a tantrum.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 77 by Volbrigade]

With the ToE, we are not talking about science. We are talking about philosophy, religion, presuppositions, biases, and worldviews.

There is simply nothing -- other than wishful thinking -- to support the idea that dirt organized itself into simple living things. There is no evidence to suggest that DNA could increase in information and complexity on the order needed to turn from a microbe to a microbiologist, no matter how much time is given for such a process. There is no evidence to suggest one kind of animal turned into another. It is a consensus of wishful thinking. And if the ToE was discarded tomorrow, as it should be, it would make not the slightest bit of difference in the world of operational science and technology, as it has not contributed one single advancement in those areas. That's because it can't. And that's because it is fundamentally untrue.

OK ... that diatribe speaks for itself I think. You have your head firmly in the sand with fingers in both ears, while science (including the ToE) will continue to correctly explain things in the natural world without resort to imaginary beings and baseless claims of what they can do.

Nonsense.

I am just operating from a different set of presuppositions than you.

I am assuming the Bible is God's revealed, propositional truth.

You are assuming it is not.

But the thing is -- it IS.

Which is why the conclusions you assent to are so erroneous. Microbes to men? Preposterous.

The same pretty much goes for our friend rik, here.

That is patently untrue, you have a set of had and fast permanent presuppositions, I have a set of carefully reasoned but only tentative conclusions. You really need to come to grips with the differences in our approaches. How many hundreds of factual errors must be elucidated before you will admit that the only reasonable way to deal with the Bible (and similar documents) is to cast a jaundiced eye at the whole thing except when it is support by independent evidence ... you know, exactly the same standard that we hold all of science to.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 83 by Volbrigade]

It will require scientists interested in truth, and not just upholding an anti-theist bias, to produce the best possible answers in that regard.

Says the person who consistently points to a book as the 'truth' and does not allow it to be challenged.

was radioactive decay part of the original, pre-Fallen creation? Or was it introduced, when God subjected it to "the bondage of decay" (for man's sake).

Are you going to perform science when asking yourself this question? Are you going to examine evidence and follow where it leads? Or are you going to be like the people in the Answers in Genesis article that was linked, and discard the evidence the moment it conflicts with the 6,000 year number you get from the Bible?

Look at what AiG did.
"Therefore, even though most of these groups of meteorites yield a consistent Pb-Pb, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb-calibrated isochron age of 4.55–4.57 Ga, that cannot be their true real-time age,
They admit that their dating method yields an age range of billions of years, but since they have a predetermined age of the universe (6,000 years, like yourself), the number obtained via the scientific method is thrown out

that cannot be their true real-time age
It can't be their real age. These guys are hacks playing at being a scientist. If a doctor examined a patient and said "According to my book, you just cannot have a tumour" when he's just admitted a physical examination reveals a tumour, that doctor ought to lose his medical licence.

So please Volbrigade think hard about this. When you were introduced to science, to the scientific method, (you can look it up online if you want), where does it say that results obtained via scientific examination can be ignored when they conflict with a certain book?
Here I will even link you
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-f ... fic-method

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 80 by rikuoamero]

... no answer obtained via the scientific method is accepted if it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible.

A perfect, and absolutely remarkable, example of this kind of thinking is in this article on Answers in Genesis:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... eteorites/

They go through a very good summary of the dating of meteorites and show via an extensive table, and graphs, complete with many references, how incredibly consistent the measurements are using various isotopes and samples, from 1965 - 2011. Much of the discussion even seems to be leading to the fact that this is so consistent there could not possibly be any doubt that the 4.6 billion year ages are correct.

Then, after all that, they create some scheme relating to "primordial material", while discarding any accuracy in radiometric dating, and claim that since we "know" that creation is only 6,000 years old more work is needed to reconcile these old erroneous radiometric dates as they simply cannot be correct (purely because they would contradict the biblical creation story and chronology):

"Therefore, even though most of these groups of meteorites yield a consistent Pb-Pb, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb-calibrated isochron age of 4.55–4.57 Ga, that cannot be their true real-time age, which according to the biblical paradigm is only about 6000 real-time years."

Utterly amazing.

Indeed. A very good article. Thanks for linking.

The salient point is: was radioactive decay part of the original, pre-Fallen creation? Or was it introduced, when God subjected it to "the bondage of decay" (for man's sake).

We probably cannot know for certain, this side of eternity.

It will require scientists interested in truth, and not just upholding an anti-theist bias, to produce the best possible answers in that regard.

By the way, DNG -- were you able to come up with one single scientific advancement; one operational or technological innovation, which can be attributed to m2m ToE?

You have a very warped view. Scientists have no preconceived notions, they are solely interested in factual findings. If theists were not trying to proselytize their horse pucky scientists would simply ignore them. Theists, on the other hand, are so strongly prejudiced that they have been known to kill people who did not al least pay lip service to the theists' preconceived notions.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 84 by DrNoGods]

As is usually the case, the lone theist has attracted a bevy of bogies -- or is it a cloud of flies?

Let's get to it:

DNG --

The ToE has no relation to whether gods exist or not...

All due respect, but that statement is either incredibly naive; impressively ignorant; or deliberately disingenuous.

You've made many statements like the one above where there is simply an assertion without any supporting evidence...

Oh. You need an external source to support the fact of design and order and information in nature? Okay. Sure:






___________________

Neat --

nothing.

___________________

Rik --

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 83 by Volbrigade]

By the way, DNG -- were you able to come up with one single scientific advancement; one operational or technological innovation, which can be attributed to m2m ToE?

I didn't realize I had been given this assignment, but the very obvious scientific advancement ToE provided was a rational, testable and consistent explanation for how life diversified over time on this planet. That, alone, is sufficient to qualify as a major advancement over prior ideas of how this happened (eg. ancient creationist tales).

The ToE was not developed in order to provide some operational or technological innovation, but I expect there have been some that evolutionary biologists and the like could list (I'm not one of those ... I am a physical chemist and a spectroscopist by trade). There have been many advances in animal breeding (artificial selection), plant breeding, understanding of diseases and genetics, etc. that may all have benefitted from ToE, but it was not developed for that purpose, or to discredit gods or as any anti-theist tool. It was developed to explain observations, as most scientific theories are.

Lastly, when you write "m2m ToE" that is confusing. There is only one ToE that I am aware of, so I can only assume you write it this way because of the usual theist's (completely artificial) tendency to split ToE into "micro" and "macro" forms, which don't exist in the actual ToE. Presumably this delineation is done to enable them to partially believe ToE (micro changes) while still rejecting aspects of the overall theory that suggest larger changes (macro), even though the ToE has no such delineation.