Scientifc accuracy in the Scriptures.

[bluethread]

Based on the concept of omniscience, many claim the plain language of the Scriptures should be scientifically accurate. So, if there were a verse that said that the Sun is the center of the solar system, would that make it acceptable on that basis?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 99 by dad]

The majority of biologists accept the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. But you'll rant day and night about how scientists don't know anything. So which is it? Is majority opinion worth attributing credibility or not? Or are you just being flagrantly hypocritical?

[dad]

there are dozens of scientifically innacurate statements in the Bible.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_ ... fic_errors

Foolish and false old wives tales. Looking at the first claim on your anti bible link we see a claim that Lev 20 is against science.

They chose a verse and a modern definition of the word translated as fowl in the KJV. (they chose the word insect as the translated word and offered a modern definition of insect as proof the bible was wrong)

In Lev 11:20 I see the word translated means this from the Hebrew

"flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
fowl, birds
winged insects

http://classic.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=05775

teeming or swarming things, creepers, swarmers
of insects, animals, small reptiles, quadrupeds

http://classic.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=08318

[Danmark]

The fundamental difference between religionists and freethinkers is that the freethinker simply wants to understand the truth, to know reality. The religious claim they already know the truth and therefore resist any attempt to change what they falsely 'know.'

Thus the religionist has to go thru tortured analysis to explain how insects might have 4 legs when they actually have 6; that birds have 4 legs when they have 2, that when the Bible declares Pi to be 3 they really meant 3.1415926535897932384626433....

The religionist is stuck trying to defend the indefensible, that the Earth was created before the stars and that people lived to be 969 years old while the freethinker simply accepts reality. The religionist must defend an ancient lie. The freethinker accepts truth.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 99 by dad]

The majority of biologists accept the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. But you'll rant day and night about how scientists don't know anything. So which is it? Is majority opinion worth attributing credibility or not? Or are you just being flagrantly hypocritical?

Only the majority opinion of the uneducated and uninformed should be give credence. The majority opinions of those who are educated and informed must be discounted whenever they disagree with the preconceived notions of dear old Dad. Doesn't that seem utterly reasonable?

[dad]

The fundamental difference between religionists and freethinkers is that the freethinker simply wants to understand the truth, to know reality.

Yes, I know, that is why science must pull in it's story telling fangs. We need to think freely and out of their little box.

Thus the religionist has to go thru tortured analysis to explain how insects might have 4 legs when they actually have 6; that birds have 4 legs when they have 2, that when the Bible declares Pi to be 3 they really meant 3.1415926535897932384626433....

Not at all, I have no idea what all insects looked like in their created state, or in the former nature. Nor do I know that the words the bible used to group critters is supposed to equal the horrid classification system of fake news science.

The religionist is stuck trying to defend the indefensible, that the Earth was created before the stars and that people lived to be 969 years old

No need to defend the record that science has nothing to say about one way or the other. No one can question it. Hoo ha.

[dad]

Only the majority opinion of the uneducated and uninformed should be give credence.

? I think we need to give credence to more than just fake news so called science. Be open minded, despite what your religion teaches.

The majority opinions of those who are educated and informed must be discounted whenever they disagree with the preconceived notions of dear old Dad.

Educating oneself with beliefs does not make one informed of the unknown, it merely makes one unable to admit it is unknown. So they make stuff up. That is science.

[H.sapiens]

Only the majority opinion of the uneducated and uninformed should be give credence.

? I think we need to give credence to more than just fake news so called science. Be open minded, despite what your religion teaches.

The majority opinions of those who are educated and informed must be discounted whenever they disagree with the preconceived notions of dear old Dad.

Educating oneself with beliefs does not make one informed of the unknown, it merely makes one unable to admit it is unknown. So they make stuff up. That is science.

I guess you must really believe that you are the smartest and best educated human on earth, though you present to me as just another teen-aged troll.

[dad]

Only the majority opinion of the uneducated and uninformed should be give credence.

? I think we need to give credence to more than just fake news so called science. Be open minded, despite what your religion teaches.

The majority opinions of those who are educated and informed must be discounted whenever they disagree with the preconceived notions of dear old Dad.

Educating oneself with beliefs does not make one informed of the unknown, it merely makes one unable to admit it is unknown. So they make stuff up. That is science.

I guess you must really believe that you are the smartest and best educated human on earth, though you present to me as just another teen-aged troll.

Not at all. Neither do I think that educating oneself with beliefs makes one informed of the unknown.

[H.sapiens]

Only the majority opinion of the uneducated and uninformed should be give credence.

? I think we need to give credence to more than just fake news so called science. Be open minded, despite what your religion teaches.

The majority opinions of those who are educated and informed must be discounted whenever they disagree with the preconceived notions of dear old Dad.

Educating oneself with beliefs does not make one informed of the unknown, it merely makes one unable to admit it is unknown. So they make stuff up. That is science.

I guess you must really believe that you are the smartest and best educated human on earth, though you present to me as just another teen-aged troll.

Not at all. Neither do I think that educating oneself with beliefs makes one informed of the unknown.

I suggest that you can't tell the difference between belief and reality, and therein lies the problem.

[dad]

I suggest that you can't tell the difference between belief and reality, and therein lies the problem.

We can go by actual posts and what is offered here for example, by you. Instead of reality we see some bizarre attitude problem, and grudge against the bible and God. Add to this a repeated abject failure to support your belief in a same nature in the past, which to you seems to constitute 'reality'. Your problem is not that I can't tell the difference between truth and lie, but that I can. I find it best not to try and name lies reality myself.