The Bible and Science

About the ice wall being thousand of feet high, could it be that you simply cant tell the difforence between it and the sky? It could be the same color.

Quote from: "Cillian"

That would be an ecumenical matter.

"YES"
"THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER"

The word "yes" is an ecumenical matter?

i believe that the 150ft ice wall is part of a FE conspiracy 2 avoid answering how high it reli is i believe like others that it is thousands of feet high and i believe that its is impossible 2 see as once u get close enough the antartic/immediate vicinity of the icewall climate is so harsh that it isnt visible i have considered that these conditions may b synthesised but a complete lack of evidence is one fatal flaw

** I am not poking fun of any religion, nor am i insulting the core of your beliefs **

I hear the Bible being brought up a few times. FE'ers are Christian based i am assuming. (i could be assuming wrong.) Coming from a highly Christian upbringing, turned atheist, i'm wondering how the Bible can be seen as a Scientific text.

The Bible is a great book. It has been reproduced easily more times than any other publication. It's social effects are vast, and for some, answers questions that can't be answered by science.

Politically it gives a church that controls people and gives them structure and foundation for society

Mentally it gives a higher power to answer to, and ultimately controlling ones actions for and against the fellow man.

Historically it is an account on what happened on Earth for thousands of years.

I'm a firm believer that the world is a better, more organized place because of the Bible. Just imagine if the average person didn't have anyone to answer to, and couldn't be held accountable for anything. This can be said for most all writings of Faith.

Having said that, and firmly believing:
I can not for the life of me see how the Bible can be used as Scientific fact. I can't apply what i have learned in my Calculus book to the psychology of humans. I apply Math when Math is needed. I apply psychology where psychology is needed. I apply history when history is needed. I don't pull out the US History book when i need to know the density of lead. So i can't see pulling out a socio-political-religious book out when i need answers to the physical world around me.

The Bible was written thousands of years ago. And whether you believe it is Divinely inspired or not, you can't refute the fact that it was scribed by man. Interpreted by man. Reproduced by man. And past on from generation to generation by man. Since it has been in the hands of man and men are sometimes wrong, I can't see believing this few thousand old document as Scientific fact.

ie. Lightning is caused by static electricity in the clouds. But the ppl in the Biblical ERA believed Lightning came directly from God and showed his wrath. Now whether or now God created the storm itself for whatever purpose is irrelevant. The ppl saw the lightning as coming directly from God, where as today we see it coming from a storm.

How can a ppl so ignorant of today's modern day Science write and reproduce a book of science when their faith was not based on scientific fact? And how come ppl continue to use a religious text as scientific fact, when it doesn't follow or support our modern day findings?

tl;dr

Okay...

For about the 100th time, the Bible does not prove that the earth is flat.  Quit being an idiot.  The Bible is a Testiment of Jesus Christ and God's ministry.  When it comes to "proving" that the earth is flat, all that the Bible "proves" is that the people of the time did not know that the earth was round yet.  It was written THOUSANDS of years before Christopher Columbus or Magellan.  That is like saying "the Bible PROVES that the Pistons will win the 2007 NBA Championship".

BTW, I am a Christian who KNOWS that the earth is round.  So quit associating the FE idiots to me.

You're not a Christian unless you believe the Earth is flat, the Bible even says it is! It is Satanists like you that make Christians look bad! Columbus and Magellan had their souls taken over by demons send from the pits of Hell to try to convert Christians into round Earthers!

You're not a Christian unless you believe the Earth is flat, the Bible even says it is! It is Satanists like you that make Christians look bad! Columbus and Magellan had their souls taken over by demons send from the pits of Hell to try to convert Christians into round Earthers!

Why did the demons have to come to Earth? I'm sure they could have found plenty of Christians in hell.

Why did the demons have to come to Earth? I'm sure they could have found plenty of Christians in hell.

There are no real Christians in Hell! Hell is reserved for Atheists, witches, native americans, round Earthers, and those who deny Jesus and God.

Quote from: Masterchief2219 on July 17, 2007, 01:36:59 PM

Why did the demons have to come to Earth? I'm sure they could have found plenty of Christians in hell.

There are no real Christians in Hell! Hell is reserved for Atheists, witches, native americans, round Earthers, and those who deny Jesus and God.

And women with "careers."

And women with "careers."

I forgot all about them, thanks for reminding me!

Why dose god kare about humanity?

Feralkitten (damn this thread is old!), according to Ubuntu Statistics, 97% of members of this site are brights. Your post reminded me of Sam Harris:

"Just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy could be if it were actually the product of omniscience. If the Bible were such a book, it would make specific, falsifiable predictions about human events. You would expect it to contain a passage like, 'In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers-the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus-and this system shall be called the Internet. The Bible contains nothing remotely like this. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century."

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=sharris_26_4

The irony of that non-working link implies these people do not exist. I smell a tom-run.

Ubuntu just wrote bad code, the link is;

www.the-brights.net

The Bible proves science wrong, the Bible is based on logic and reason. While science on the other hand, is based on ignorance and lies.

You flipped the definitions over there, and still you got it wrong. Religion is not based on lies so much as metaphors and beliefs. Science is logic and reasoning.

The Bible proves science wrong, the Bible is based on logic and reason. While science on the other hand, is based on ignorance and lies.

Blanket statements do not really give you any credence.

Genesis

# God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5

# God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8

# Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

# In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

The irony of that non-working link implies these people do not exist. I smell a tom-run.

You stole my material.

The Bible proves science wrong, the Bible is based on logic and reason. While science on the other hand, is based on ignorance and lies.

Yes, that is why the church quells technological advances and calls them satanic,

Not an insult to christianity, just a remark on topic, that the bible can't be taken as a scientific text.

I'm pretty sure the ancient peoples of the world would have had to use science to tell them how to make hhouses and cook stuff... coz God sure as hell didn't.

First of all, the bible as you said is written by Man. But it is divinely inspired so therefore it originates from the creator. The bible is not a scientific text but it is a Historical text. The creation account in Genesis can be read as a poetic way of writing earth's early history.

Second I am relieved to say that most Flat Earthers are nonreligious, and believe earth is flat for some other mysterious reason. There is no biblical reason to believe earth is flat. There are however some verses which imply a round earth.

Yours sincerely, The Rational Theist

How can a ppl so ignorant of today's modern day Science write and reproduce a book of science when their faith was not based on scientific fact? And how come ppl continue to use a religious text as scientific fact, when it doesn't follow or support our modern day findings?

Believing the bible is true, also means (to me) incorporating the modern scientific discoveries, understanding how diffrent parts of language and speech were used in the times it was written, and the context itts being used in.

heres a few thing i believe, understanding that the bible, although i believe everything is literally true, has to be cross examined from and modern day, and a not so modern-day standpoint

1) creationism, this is the biggun.  in the origninal bible, the word used in the sentence " god created existance in 7 days" for day, was Yom (spelling?) the ancient hebrew word for day, but this word has a double meaning, and can also mean, period of time. asuming this, would it therfore not be to unreasonable to believe that these "days" or "yoms" could have taken place over million, even billions of years? that evolution was god transforming and perfecting his creatures? (meteor=undo )

2) the flood, another biggun. most people do not believe the entire earth could have flooded, i dont, but theres a good reason this. when the bible, or this section of it, was written, to them the known world was only the middle east, parts of europe...and i dont think China, but i may be wrong (still only 16 here). there is scientific data of a massive flood in ancient times happening in Isreal, and since this was the world to them, could  this not be what they were talking about?


I could give other examples, but im tired of typing, ask more if yah wanna know, i enjoy debating religion

For about the 100th time, the Bible does not prove that the earth is flat.  Quit being an idiot. 

The Bible does prove the Earth is flat. Try reading it a few times and you will realize the Bible is superior to your satanic religion of "science".

There is no such thing as a Christian that is a round Earther. You're a false Christian, taken over by the devil.

Quote from: Feralkitten on July 11, 2006, 01:24:00 PM

How can a ppl so ignorant of today's modern day Science write and reproduce a book of science when their faith was not based on scientific fact? And how come ppl continue to use a religious text as scientific fact, when it doesn't follow or support our modern day findings?

2) the flood, another biggun. most people do not believe the entire earth could have flooded, i dont, but theres a good reason this. when the bible, or this section of it, was written, to them the known world was only the middle east, parts of europe...and i dont think China, but i may be wrong (still only 16 here). there is scientific data of a massive flood in ancient times happening in Isreal, and since this was the world to them, could  this not be what they were talking about?

The problem with that viewpoint is that, whatever the Bible writers may have known, the God who inspired/dictated the text of the Bible to them certainly should have known all these things.

In the end, if you concede that anything in the Bible is false, how can you possibly judge between what in it is false and what is true?

First of all, the bible as you said is written by Man. But it is divinely inspired so therefore it originates from the creator.

  What's your evidence for that?

The bible is not a scientific text but it is a Historical text.

In the same way that Lord Of The Rings is a "historical text" I would agree.  If you're saying that any part of it can be believed as events that have actually happened, I would have to ask what evidence you have for that being true.

The creation account in Genesis can be read as a poetic way of writing earth's early history.

It's not accurate to call something completely made up "history" - what evidence do you have that any part of Genesis is actually "history" and not fiction?

Why dose god kare about humanity?

gOD DOESN'T KAREE about hunamity.
God chares ONLY about the Good Ol' US of A.
Ask Bush if you don't believe me! 

For about the 100th time, the Bible does not prove that the earth is flat.  Quit being an idiot.  The Bible is a Testiment of Jesus Christ and God's ministry.  When it comes to "proving" that the earth is flat, all that the Bible "proves" is that the people of the time did not know that the earth was round yet.  It was written THOUSANDS of years before Christopher Columbus or Magellan.  That is like saying "the Bible PROVES that the Pistons will win the 2007 NBA Championship".

BTW, I am a Christian who KNOWS that the earth is round.  So quit associating the FE idiots to me.

People of the time also didn't know coveting your neighbor's wife was fine.

For the record, Christopher Columbus had absolutely nothing to do with proving the world was round.  That's completely a myth.  People at the time of Columbus knew that the world was round, and had done since the time of the Greeks (or even earlier).

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on September 29, 2007, 08:32:57 AM

First of all, the bible as you said is written by Man. But it is divinely inspired so therefore it originates from the creator.

  What's your evidence for that?

Quote

The bible is not a scientific text but it is a Historical text.

In the same way that Lord Of The Rings is a "historical text" I would agree.  If you're saying that any part of it can be believed as events that have actually happened, I would have to ask what evidence you have for that being true.

Quote

The creation account in Genesis can be read as a poetic way of writing earth's early history.

It's not accurate to call something completely made up "history" - what evidence do you have that any part of Genesis is actually "history" and not fiction?

Sort of, by how accurate and historical the bible is.
Many historical events are recorded in the bible (Fall of Jerusalem, Jewish exile in Babylon, Reign of King David etc.).  And lastly what I meant be "early history of the earth" is its formation and evolution over the past four and a half billion years as well as the Big Bang.

Also scientists have discovered a "mitochondrial Eve" which most of humanity descendad from a hundred thousand or so years ago. Which gives evidence that atleast one of the Abrahamic Religions might be true (I'll study further).