Science And The Bible - Introduction

[Edwardo Piet]

Which doesn't disagree with the Bible. No problem.

It seems to me its like If you get evidence that contradicts the bible you throw out the evidence instead of the bible:p

It's called denial

Denial OR ignorance, right? But Is ignorance a form of denial or denial a form of ignorance?

[Daystar]

Which doesn't disagree with the Bible. No problem.

It seems to me its like If you get evidence that contradicts the bible you throw out the evidence instead of the bible:p

No. I am only interested in whether or not there is a conflict with science. I don't think that there is.

---

No, I can't. You just said you won't check out (most) links, and I assume that when you ask for links only with pictures or as references, you mean you don't want to do any reading. You're disappointing, Daystar, because you say you want to learn but have no initiative to actually do so. I've recommended a book to you already which is chock full of examples that you are demanding, but I don't believe you'll ever look at it. Nonetheless, I'll try again- here is a list of many transitional fossils in the vertebrate group. Sorry, no pictures though. Here.

I am not interested in a link exchange. We could give one another links until the end of time and accomplish nothing. In fact, I would eventually win this game because there are more people out there that would have provided links to my side of the argument. Nevermind that most of them would be lame and not worth the time.

Everyone here has more or less dismissed everything I have to say about the Bible because it is about the Bible. It isn't personal, even though we both think the other is idiotic.

It is the Bible vs. Science. I want to see what I think about the Bible and how that holds up to what you think about science.

---

Denial OR ignorance, right? But Is ignorance a form of denial or denial a form of ignorance?

Well, lets see . . . I don't deny the Bible and I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on what it says, so . . .oh, you were talking about yourself. Carry on.

[Edwardo Piet]

No. I am only interested in whether or not there is a conflict with science. I don't think that there is.

---

But what conflicts have you encountered? And out out of these conflicts have you EVER thrown out the part of the bible that conflicts with science rather than the part of science that conflicts with the bible?

Well, lets see . . . I don't deny the Bible and I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on what it says, so . . .oh, you were talking about yourself. Carry on.

No I was of course, talking about you. I was saying that you either don't understand that the bible is not evidence of God or God's word because of ignorance. Or because of - as Ace suggested - denial. And then I asked Ace: "Is ignorance a form of denial or denial a form of ignorance?"
I now think that basically denial is a very specific form of ignorance.
Surely you understood really I think you're just messing about

[Tiberius]

The Genesis account uses the word kind, variations within a kind doesn't conflict with the Bible.

So you admit that "macro" Evolution does contradict the Bible? Note that macro evolution is supported by 99.9% of the scientific community, and therefore constitutes it as science (possibly the most widely supported scientific view). I'd like to see how you can find the Biblical passage that supports macro Evolution.

Of course, you could simply deny it ever happened, but that would leave you looking rather foolish in front of people who actually understand the subject.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yep. And would be an example of throwing out the evidence rather than the scripture

[Daystar]

But what conflicts have you encountered? And out out of these conflicts have you EVER thrown out the part of the bible that conflicts with science rather than the part of science that conflicts with the bible?

The conflicts I have encountered are insects have four legs, bats are birds, a misapplication of pi, the earth is flat, the flood, six literal days - those sorts of things. All at the top of my head, but those are all that I can think of for now.

To answer your question, that has never happened. The point that you are making is noted, however. It is interesting that you can see the possibility of bias with me, but not yourself. You have thrown out the Bible long before you got to the point of realizing that you might have needed to throw it out for science, and there is nothing that could change that.

I see science as not really conflicting with the Bible, though I don't really know much about science as I do the Bible. You assume there is a conflict because you are ignorant - and I don't mean that in derogatory way of it. What bugs me about you is that you are willfully ignorant and yet you continue to criticize. You don't see me doing that with science.

The only thing about science that bugs me is the sort of dogmatic insistence of a tiny portion of it.

If science proved to me that the Bible was a myth I would drop the idea of God and the Bible like it was a hot potato. Just like [snaps fingers] that.

No I was of course, talking about you. I was saying that you either don't understand that the bible is not evidence of God or God's word because of ignorance. Or because of - as Ace suggested - denial. And then I asked Ace: "Is ignorance a form of denial or denial a form of ignorance?"
I now think that basically denial is a very specific form of ignorance.
Surely you understood really I think you're just messing about

Ignorance means to not know. Stupidity means willful ignorance. Denial is, in my opinion, a stupidity rather than ignorance because if you are truly ignorant you don't need to be in denial, but if you are willfully ignorant you could be in denial - which actually would come from a desire to remain willfully ignorant. To me that is you, and most militant atheists that I know and have known from online.

It is interesting that I see that sort of denial - willful ignorance - in Xian as well as people of other beliefs and atheists. A sort of predetermination that is emotional. For example; if I present an article from a biblical and secular historical accuracy which demonstrates that Jesus couldn't have died on a cross. That it would have been socially, politically, physically, medically, historically, linguistically and prophetically impossible the Xians would find insult at it and not want to believe it, but the atheists would scoff at it as well.

Someone who has no opinion formed, no sort of emotional attachment to their own predetermined opinion but has some knowledge of the Xian cross and an uninformed curiosity would find it fascinating. This happens all the time.

[Edwardo Piet]

Daystar,
I am certainly not in denial. If I really believed God existed I'd be more than happy to express that.
Anyway, to your point - the thing is, I'm not rejecting evidence. You accept FACTS about the universe that don't conflict with the bible. I accept probably nothing factual about the bible. Its just a matter of speculation. If I actually thought there was evidence in there I would accept it.
The thing is you agree with science when it doesn't conflict with the bible. Which is quite a bit because there's of course a lot of stuff in the bible that isn't science. I don't really scientifically agree with the bible at all because I don't think it has any facts or that there's any evidence of truth in it.
If you really think that I'm doing the equivalent of what I said you appear to be doing. Then I certainly beg to differ. The bible and science are too different. But where do you get your facts from really? I don't recommend only accepting most or some scientific facts and then reject any that conflicts with your 2000+ old holy book.

[lukec]

If science proved to me that the Bible was a myth I would drop the idea of God and the Bible like it was a hot potato. Just like [snaps fingers] that.

You point out errors with the bible yourself and still cling to it as historically accurate/factual/true? Daystar, you refuse to accept any evidence that could possible cast doubt on your Bible, so how could anything prove that it was a myth?

[Daystar]

Anyway, to your point - the thing is, I'm not rejecting evidence. You accept FACTS about the universe that don't conflict with the bible. I accept probably nothing factual about the bible. Its just a matter of speculation. If I actually thought there was evidence in there I would accept it.

So you are saying that there is probably nothing factual about the Bible without ever having read it or checked its facts? You do this in the name of evidence and science and you think I can't call you out on it?

You see that? What I did there?

The thing is you agree with science when it doesn't conflict with the bible. Which is quite a bit because there's of course a lot of stuff in the bible that isn't science. I don't really scientifically agree with the bible at all because I don't think it has any facts or that there's any evidence of truth in it.

Some people say that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate and therefore unauthentic, not possibly the inspired word of the Creator, Jehovah God. I have addressed these accusations and demonstrated them to be misunderstandings.

1. Was the Earth created in 6 literal days? No.

2. Was the flood possible? Yes.

3. Does the Bible say that the earth is flat? No.

4. Does the Bible say that bats are birds? No.

5. Does the Bible say that insects have four legs? No.

6. Does the Bible say that Rabbits chew their cud? Refection.

If you really think that I'm doing the equivalent of what I said you appear to be doing. Then I certainly beg to differ. The bible and science are too different. But where do you get your facts from really? I don't recommend only accepting most or some scientific facts and then reject any that conflicts with your 2000+ old holy book.

Since you are criticising the Bible where do you get your facts from in doing so?

You will notice that I have said in the past that I don't think that science actually does conflict with the Bible. I am trying to demonstrate this but I can't even get any of you guys to tell me what a picture of some sculls are, you are so confident in your facts!

---

You point out errors with the bible yourself and still cling to it as historically accurate/factual/true? Daystar, you refuse to accept any evidence that could possible cast doubt on your Bible, so how could anything prove that it was a myth?

Can you point out where it is not historically accurate/factual/true?

I refuse no evidence at all, hell, I am trying to get you to provide evidence and you - none of you - seem able to do it. You want big long article of Bible facts, I can do that, but I am here trying to get you guys to show me where science conflicts with the Bible.

I might as well ask the cat!

[lukec]

No matter how much you wish it Daystar, the flood did not happen. So there's one. Don't tell me that the evidence might be misinterpreted, that's just bull.