Scientific ACCURACIES in the Bible

[The Grand Nudger]

The world doesn't hang, "on nothing" or otherwise. This is always whats wrong with this sort of stuff. We could interpret what we read as being in accordance with what we might observe about any given thing but this does not mean that the passage actually says what we have interpreted it to say, nor does it imply that the authors would have had any inkling of how they might be interpreted thousands of years into the future or why the authors of the passage believed what they did to begin with. Now, suppose we were to find a passage which could not be dismissed (which we haven't yet, step up believers). What then? Well, ff you proposed (10 days ago) that today I would choose the number 1 out of the numbers 1 and 2, would that speak to your accuracy with regards to predictive abilities or might something else be involved?

A favorable interpretation does not equal "scientifically accurate"

A good guess does not equal "scientifically accurate"

When you invoke science you invoke all of the baggage that comes along with it (for better or for worse, as it were, depending on which side of any given claim you might stand on).

[Minimalist]

When you invoke science you invoke all of the baggage that comes along with it

Which is why the lunatic fringe so prefers "goddidit." So much cleaner for them. None of those annoying facts to worry about.

[hoppimike]

The world doesn't hang, "on nothing" or otherwise. This is always whats wrong with this sort of stuff. We could interpret what we read as being in accordance with what we might observe about any given thing but this does not mean that the passage actually says what we have interpreted it to say, nor does it imply that the authors would have had any inkling of how they might be interpreted thousands of years into the future or why the authors of the passage believed what they did to begin with. Now, suppose we were to find a passage which could not be dismissed (which we haven't yet, step up believers). What then? Well, ff you proposed (10 days ago) that today I would choose the number 1 out of the numbers 1 and 2, would that speak to your accuracy with regards to predictive abilities or might something else be involved?

A favorable interpretation does not equal "scientifically accurate"

A good guess does not equal "scientifically accurate"

When you invoke science you invoke all of the baggage that comes along with it (for better or for worse, as it were, depending on which side of any given claim you might stand on).

Yeah, agreed

I think the notion of the world "hanging" does not really match what we can observe today with modern science. If it just came out and said "the Earth orbits the sun" or something really intelligent then that would be pretty darn impressive!

Just how controversial was this view that the Earth "hung on nothing"?

[The Grand Nudger]

They very well could have said just that, but they didn't actually know that, and didn't even mount a particularly impressive guess. You'll often hear that these descriptions are accurate, but meant for people who didn't understand what we do now. The trouble is that you could have explained a nuclear reactor to a Babylonian, in all likelihood. Many times the words and concepts we use to this day in the most advanced branches of science have their origins in very distant antiquity. Gods have a habit of knowing only what their believers know, and being blissfully ignorant in precisely the same areas as their adherents.

[hoppimike]

They very well could have said just that, but they didn't actually know that, and didn't even mount a particularly impressive guess. You'll often hear that these descriptions are accurate, but meant for people who didn't understand what we do now. The trouble is that you could have explained a nuclear reactor to a Babylonian, in all likelihood. Many times the words and concepts we use to this day in the most advanced branches of science have their origins in very distant antiquity. Gods have a habit of knowing only what their believers know, and being blissfully ignorant in precisely the same areas as their adherents.

haha very true - strange that!

[Drich]

The world doesn't hang, "on nothing" or otherwise. This is always whats wrong with this sort of stuff. We could interpret what we read as being in accordance with what we might observe about any given thing but this does not mean that the passage actually says what we have interpreted it to say, nor does it imply that the authors would have had any inkling of how they might be interpreted thousands of years into the future or why the authors of the passage believed what they did to begin with. Now, suppose we were to find a passage which could not be dismissed (which we haven't yet, step up believers). What then? Well, ff you proposed (10 days ago) that today I would choose the number 1 out of the numbers 1 and 2, would that speak to your accuracy with regards to predictive abilities or might something else be involved?

A favorable interpretation does not equal "scientifically accurate"

A good guess does not equal "scientifically accurate"

When you invoke science you invoke all of the baggage that comes along with it (for better or for worse, as it were, depending on which side of any given claim you might stand on).

So ask yourself where does the passage in question "invoke science?" Or is that something someone else has done by taking a literal english interpertation of one verse while ignoring the rest of the passage? Science was invoked and the contextual meaning of the passage was changed to fit an arguement. That is the defination of a straw man.

[Cato]

So ask yourself where does the passage in question "invoke science?" Or is that something someone else has done by taking a literal english interpertation of one verse while ignoring the rest of the passage? Science was invoked and the contextual meaning of the passage was changed to fit an arguement. That is the defination of a straw man.

This coming from someone that still owes me a catholic doctrine that supports the idea of 'no god'.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...
So ask yourself where does the passage in question "invoke science?" Or is that something someone else has done by taking a literal english interpertation of one verse while ignoring the rest of the passage? Science was invoked and the contextual meaning of the passage was changed to fit an arguement. That is the defination of a straw man.

We're looking at the passages to see how, when correctly read, they relate to reality. The reason why we're looking at these verses in the first place is because creationists cite them as showing advanced scientific knowledge from people in a pre-scientific age. We're showing in this thread how the creationists are wrong, and that these verses when read properly and in their historical context don't actually show any advanced scientific understanding, and in some cases even have completely wrong information about reality.

So far in this thread, in the cases where biblical cosmology are concerned, your defenses have mostly comprised of switching out words in verses with alternative lexicon meanings of words with little if any justification for such a change. You seem to be trying to reinterpret these verses as being entirely metaphor that serves some greater point but you haven't shown why the literal simpler interpretation cannot also demonstrate the same point just as well as the metaphorical. In essence, it appears to me that you're just favoring a metaphorical rather than a literal interpretation because the literal interpretation contradicts reality. You've also ignored the historical context of the controversial statements in question.

[Drich]

So ask yourself where does the passage in question "invoke science?" Or is that something someone else has done by taking a literal english interpertation of one verse while ignoring the rest of the passage? Science was invoked and the contextual meaning of the passage was changed to fit an arguement. That is the defination of a straw man.

This coming from someone that still owes me a catholic doctrine that supports the idea of 'no god'.

How/when?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

That might have been viable, if it were not for you assholes' propensity for pushing for your superstitions' influence in our lives and our secular laws and the lives of our children, and your constant attempts to infect us and our children with your disease of delusion.

So.. your only defense is to push Your beliefs and morals onto us? To do exactly what it is you have accused us of doing? How is this not hypocrisy?

LOL because I am the one who spends all my time trolling atheism in x-tard forums, right?






hock:





Oh, wait....

---

I'm surprised that anyone payed any attention to that comment at all, everyone knows that Drich has a suffering martry timer that goes off every few hours. It's one of the articles of his faith.
(you can also use it to bake apple pies-from scratch)

--Dafuk???


Say it isn't SO!

---

And when have we done that?

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but was I talking to you? Or any of the 'we' other than the person who that comment was directed?

That person along with a few others had me ban from another web site for not being an atheist/supporting his thoughts of God.

And I thought that lying was a big No-NO in your book.

My understanding of your banishment at AFC was that it was for excessive (read: wayyyy over the top, in a manner that very few of the religiotards that troll through there have ever achieved) proselytizing, attempting to set yourself up in a role of self-appointed "teacher" to us as "students" (which no one asked you to do) and insisting upon acting out that charade after being advised otherwise, and for repeated belligerent and obstinate violations of reasonable standards of polite and rational discourse.

I could be wrong on any or all of these points as I was not the one who banished you and have no power to banish and no influence whatsoever over the moderators and administrators there.

No one gets banned at AFC for not being an atheist, or for "not supporting" any member's "thoughts of gawd".