tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post897036926185880020..comments2023-11-02T06:08:18.683-07:00Comments on Atheist's Wager: An Unlikely Mormon ApologistEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03596383179921442046noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-48108635261820172892010-06-28T12:09:24.500-07:002010-06-28T12:09:24.500-07:00As a Mormon, there's not much I disagree with....As a Mormon, there's not much I disagree with. There is one point I want to clarify: Jesus came to the Americas after the resurrection and the 40 day sojourn with the Apostles in Jerusalem. Just wanted to point that out.Montyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08755834172916511814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-42327238982343910302009-02-14T12:34:00.000-08:002009-02-14T12:34:00.000-08:00@MJD There were various people who were selected a...@MJD <BR/><BR/>There were various people who were selected as "witnesses" to the golden plates. Even though a few left the church due to many reasons, they never denied their testimonies of the plates or of Joseph Smith.DHeapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00467716091696017313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-31995287348524592132007-05-24T05:53:00.000-07:002007-05-24T05:53:00.000-07:00@ bible student- if you need to find a verse "proh...@ bible student- if you need to find a verse "prohibiting" the creation of something not mentioned in Genesis, you might as well quit looking and go fishing, because then anything goes.<BR/><BR/>For instance, if I asked you how kangaroos got to Australia from the Ark, which is a real stumper because they couldn't have swum the hundreds of miles of open ocean, you could reply:<BR/><BR/>"Well, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that Noah <I>didn't</I> put them on a raft with the koalas and goannas, and they paddled to Australia with their powerful tails".<BR/><BR/>Do you see the problem here?zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-70996051280182683542007-05-24T04:29:00.000-07:002007-05-24T04:29:00.000-07:00@ zilchMaybe you missed my post:“I would figure th...@ zilch<BR/><BR/>Maybe you missed my post:<BR/><BR/>“I would figure that photosynthesis wouldn’t stop at the waters edge, and long before any thing as large as a sea monster (whale, squid etc.) could live, plants would grow offshore.”<BR/><BR/>“Life in the water” needs food, so plants before animals. I looked again, and can’t find the verse prohibiting plant life in the water. I doubt that the first sea creatures got out for lunch.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You say that because your kind doesn’t understand, the information is flawed? <BR/><BR/>You sound bashful or like you have given up. It’s not a “dubious enterprise” to those who make the effort. <BR/><BR/>I’m not looking for consensus. Jesus also taught at Matthew 7:13-14, “Enter in through the narrow gate, for wide the gate and broad the way that leads to destruction, and many are they who enter in through it. For narrow the gate and straitened the way that leads to life, and they are few who find it.” Lots of people have been mistaken about many things over the centuries. I’ll stick with truth, rather than popular opinion.Bible studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285279271865107834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-1106205186451749022007-05-23T22:59:00.000-07:002007-05-23T22:59:00.000-07:00@ bible student:You say:" “More or less true” is l...@ bible student:<BR/><BR/>You say:<BR/><BR/>" “More or less true” is like “a little bit pregnant.” We have gone from “full of misconceptions” to what, not sure?"<BR/><BR/>There's no conflict here: a book can be full of misconceptions and still have parts that are true. For instance: many of the peoples and places mentioned in the Bible are real, and many of the battles mentioned probably did take place. But as I said, lots of things are not true. One example you haven't addressed is the creation of grasses and trees on land before any life in the water, which is in clear conflict with science.<BR/><BR/>Another example of a work with a mixture of truth and falsehood: while most of the <I>Origin of Species</I> is true, there are some errors. For example: Darwin knew nothing about genes, and his speculations about how inheritance works were wildly off. But his basic ideas were sound, and are the basis for the modern understanding of evolution. Darwin, not being a god but rather a humble and curious scientist, would have been the first to rejoice at the clearing up of his mistakes. <BR/><BR/>There <I>are</I> cases where the truth or falsity of something is comparable to being pregnant: that is, either one or the other, not in between. One case is simple statements in circumscribed systems of formal logic, such as mathematics: 2+2=4 is either true or false.<BR/><BR/>Another case is sacred texts. For many Christians, and other religious fundamentalists as well, their Word of God is either wholly true or not. However, as I've said, to ascertain the truth of a text such as the Bible, which is largely poetic, vague, and subject to myriad translations, is a dubious enterprise at best.<BR/><BR/>Going on- you say:<BR/><BR/>"It’s an odd old saying, but I’ll use it. "The proof of the pudding is the eating."<BR/><BR/>The science books of our day need correction. This old book holds up under scrutiny."<BR/><BR/>Nothing odd about the old saying. Jesus said it too: by their fruits shall ye know them. You do know that "proof" here is the older meaning of "test".<BR/><BR/>Science books need correction all the time, by definition: science is always under scrutiny; nothing in science is sacred. Our picture of the world is always improving, but never perfect. The "old book" is not perfect either; it does not hold up under scrutiny, or there would be far fewer atheists. The difference is, the Bible is never corrected- unless you count newer religions based on it, such as Islam and Mormonism, to be "corrections", as many do.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-52723185679371742372007-05-23T19:00:00.000-07:002007-05-23T19:00:00.000-07:00@ zilchIt’s an odd old saying, but I’ll use it. "T...@ zilch<BR/><BR/>It’s an odd old saying, but I’ll use it. "The proof of the pudding is the eating." <BR/><BR/>The science books of our day need correction. This old book holds up under scrutiny.<BR/><BR/>Long before Bible study, I was taught, "consider the source." You may have helped me prove that scripture at Colossians 1:17.Bible studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285279271865107834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-16163192659542272362007-05-23T18:41:00.000-07:002007-05-23T18:41:00.000-07:00@ zilchIf the “errors” you have pointed out had v...@ zilch<BR/><BR/>If the “errors” you have pointed out had validity, I would change my tune. There is no bad science in the Bible. “More or less true” is like “a little bit pregnant.” We have gone from “full of misconceptions” to what, not sure?Bible studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285279271865107834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-34524913351176451432007-05-23T04:18:00.000-07:002007-05-23T04:18:00.000-07:00@ bible student. You say"My Bible speaks of Chris...@ bible student. You say<BR/><BR/>"My Bible speaks of Christ at Colossians 1:17, "Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,"<BR/><BR/>With that much know-how, it’s no wonder that science is not disproving the Bible."<BR/><BR/>At the risk of beating a dead horse: what know-how? Although science cannot "disprove" the whole Bible, and in fact parts of it are likely to be more or less true, there are also lots of errors, as I have pointed out.<BR/><BR/>If, by "know-how", you mean the claim that Christ is "before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist", all I can say is: prove it.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-39641392530324685492007-05-21T11:59:00.000-07:002007-05-21T11:59:00.000-07:00@ zilch So with all that said, the Bible does not ...@ zilch <BR/><BR/>So with all that said, the Bible does not seem to be "full of misconceptions." It can be debated, have consensus formed on certain verses, read like poetry rather than be "impressive." Even be badly translated. <BR/><BR/>My Bible speaks of Christ at Colossians 1:17, "Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist," <BR/><BR/>With that much know-how, it’s no wonder that science is not disproving the Bible.Bible studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285279271865107834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-26054804774051770262007-05-21T08:23:00.000-07:002007-05-21T08:23:00.000-07:00Bible student- sorry, it's still not plate tectoni...Bible student- sorry, it's still not plate tectonics, unless you exercise a great deal of wishful thinking. Mountains go up and valleys go down without plate tectonics as well- volcanoes build up and rivers dig down whether there's continental drift or not. Now, if verse 8 had said something like:<BR/><BR/>"The great lands, riding on fiery rocks, slid into one another, pushing up mountains where they met"<BR/><BR/><I>that</I> would have been more impressive. <BR/><BR/>As it is, however, the New Life Version is a minority view of the meaning of these verses. Most other translations I found say that the <I>waters</I> already mentioned go up the mountains and down the valleys, not that the mountains and valleys go up and down. That's the way it seems to read to me too. But who knows? The Hebrew is pretty ambiguous- check it out for yourself.<BR/><BR/>There's also debate about whether these waters are part of the Creation story, or perhaps part of the Flood story. If they are part of the Creation story, then they would seem to be describing the third day, when God gathered the waters under Heaven in one place and made the dry land appear. If this is so, there weren't any fish yet to leave fossils on the mountaintops. But perhaps the Psalm means something else.<BR/><BR/>In any case, even if we accept the New Life Version translation and accept that continental drift does indeed make mountains go up and valleys go down, all that means is that we've got one Bible verse that does not conflict with science. But it is not by any stretch of the imagination a description of plate tectonics- as ilja said, why did we have to wait for Wegener if Psalm 104 already gave us a scientific description of plate tectonics?<BR/><BR/>The problem is as I said: claims about modern scientific discoveries being foreshadowed in the Bible rest upon very biased readings of very vague texts with very little information content. If your standards for a match between a cherry-picked Bible verse and some truth of modern science are low enough, you can prove anything.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, Jack Chick once posed the question in one of his evangelizing comic books (and I've found this notion <A HREF="http://www.pbc.org/library/files/html/0252.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> as well): how is it that protons stay together in atomic nuclei, when they should repel one another, being all positive? The answer is not residual nuclear force, oh no, but rather Jesus (who must be a very busy fellow):<BR/><BR/>"By Him are all things held together" - Collosians 1:17zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-63127093289864748572007-05-21T04:50:00.000-07:002007-05-21T04:50:00.000-07:00@ zilch I think you’re getting lost in the old Eng...@ zilch <BR/><BR/>I think you’re getting lost in the old English. The New Life Version renders it, <BR/><BR/>6 You covered it with the sea as with a coat. The waters stood above the mountains. <BR/><BR/>7 The waters left at Your strong words. They went away in a hurry at the sound of Your thunder. <BR/><BR/>8 The mountains went up and the valleys went down to the place that You made for them.<BR/><BR/>Plate tectonics. <BR/><BR/>See also, http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=65<BR/><BR/>Deluge is after man’s creation. Mountain building started much earlier.Bible studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285279271865107834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-35060103142498074982007-05-21T02:07:00.000-07:002007-05-21T02:07:00.000-07:00Oh, and another thing. Bible student, you say"Evi...Oh, and another thing. Bible student, you say<BR/><BR/>"Evidence of Psalm 104:6 & 8 are in the fossils of sea creatures at high elevations."<BR/><BR/>But in your previous post, you said that the same Psalm verses were a description of plate tectonics. Which is it? It can't be <I>both</I> the subsiding waters of the Deluge <I>and</I> continental drift.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-62421475773301816212007-05-21T02:01:00.000-07:002007-05-21T02:01:00.000-07:00@ bible student: you say"You and I have the advant...@ bible student: you say<BR/><BR/>"You and I have the advantage of living after Galileo used his telescope to help explain the moon and planets. To early man, if it wasn’t on the earth it was in the heavens."<BR/><BR/>Indeed, and it's exactly this advantage that shows us where the Bible is wrong. We can't blame early man for not knowing about the moon and the planets, or about the development of life on Earth. But we might expect God to know something about these things. If the Bible is the Word of God, although we can grant leeway to Him to use words and concepts familiar to the people He's talking to, we should also expect that there are no glaring errors in His Book. But there are lots of them, as I have pointed out.<BR/><BR/>You haven't really addressed my points at all. How can you interpret "creation" to mean "clearing the haze"? This is of course ignoring the fact that there's no evidence that the atmosphere of the Earth was so obscured until after the appearance of grasses and trees that the Sun and Moon would not have been visible. Venus is not comparable, as I said.<BR/><BR/>And what about trees and grasses appearing before life in the water? As I said, this is way off, and there's no way I can see to twist a different meaning out of this. By the way, since I'm not fluent in Hebrew, I've been relying on the <A HREF="http://www.bju.edu/bible/bible.php?b=gen&c=1&v=0&d=1&w=0" REL="nofollow"> the Linked Word Project</A>, a great resource for understanding the Bible better.<BR/><BR/>About Psalms 104:5- as I said, I'm no Bible scholar, but I don't see why your interpretation, that the Earth shall not change places with Venus or Mars, is any better than mine, that the continents shall not drift. Who can say what is meant here, if anything?<BR/><BR/>And that's the problem with trying to find science in the Bible. While the meaning of many Bible statements is clear enough to say whether they are right or wrong- say, the order of creation in Genesis- many others are so poetically or vaguely formulated that they will support just about any interpretation. As the physicist Wolfgang Pauli once said of a paper on physics, "It's not even wrong". Trying to find Biblical descriptions of continental drift is like finding coded messages predicting 9/11: if you know what you want to find, the text is big and flexible enough so that you will find what you want. In fact, Jesus agrees with me:<BR/><BR/>"Ask, and it shall be be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you"<BR/><BR/>Bible student, you are right in saying that we are still superstitious, and I would agree that we have no right to feel superior to our predecessors. We're no smarter than they were, so there's no reason to be proud. I shouldn't have said that the Bible, or its authors, were "simpleminded". What I meant was what you already said: we have the benefit of thousands of years of learning about the world.<BR/><BR/>And as I've said, there's lots of hard-won wisdom in the Bible too. It's just not the Word of God.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-88583098194221063462007-05-20T18:37:00.000-07:002007-05-20T18:37:00.000-07:00@ zilchYou and I have the advantage of living afte...@ zilch<BR/><BR/>You and I have the advantage of living after Galileo used his telescope to help explain the moon and planets. To early man, if it wasn’t on the earth it was in the heavens. (Even “birds of the heavens.”) <BR/><BR/>Again:<BR/><BR/>“1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. <BR/><BR/>Stars, our sun and <B>moon</B> and the earth can all be included in that statement.”<BR/><BR/>From the viewpoint of person on earth, these lights would not have been invisible through overcast. I guess it would be like trying to see the sun standing on Venus’ surface.<BR/><BR/>I would figure that photosynthesis wouldn’t stop at the waters edge, and long before any thing as large as a sea monster (whale, squid etc.) could live, plants would grow offshore.<BR/><BR/>Psalms 104:5 Natural law seems to have kept “the whole earth” in place. (no switching with Venus and Mars)<BR/><BR/>Evidence of Psalm 104:6 & 8 are in the fossils of sea creatures at high elevations.<BR/><BR/>Chinese: http://english.people.com.cn/english/200101/19/eng20010119_60887.html<BR/><BR/>USDA Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/resource_management/geology/fossils.shtml<BR/><BR/>I don’t thing that’s from osmosis.<BR/><BR/>A simpleminded attitude is recommended at Matthew 18:4. Compared with many adults, children are more teachable and not as prone to pride.Bible studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285279271865107834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-65140411643835479752007-05-20T12:15:00.000-07:002007-05-20T12:15:00.000-07:00Doesn't wash, bible student. You say:"Anyway, as ...Doesn't wash, bible student. You say:<BR/><BR/>"Anyway, as the overcast lessened over the millenniums, photosynthesis would be possible, even before the luminaries were visible in the sky. So “grasses before the Sun and Moon” is quite possible."<BR/><BR/>Hmmm. Leaving aside the fact that the atmosphere of Venus is 97% CO2, not comparable to Earth's atmosphere at any stage, Genesis doesn't say that "God allowed the Sun and Moon to be seen through the haze, by all the animals He hadn't created yet, on Day Four", but that He <I>created</I> the two great lights (or luminaries) and set them in the firmament (or vault of heaven) on Day Four. It would take a very great stretch of poetic license to say that "creation" means "making visible to creatures not yet created" if you ask me.<BR/><BR/>By the way- an interesting fact perhaps not know to fundamentalists: Early in the Earth's history it was struck by a Mars-sized object, breaking off a large chunk which went into orbit around the Earth. It's still there, and it's called the Moon. Of course, this happened long after the Sun was "created", and long before there was any liquid water on the Earth to make seas, not to mention life, so it's another chronological error in Genesis.<BR/><BR/>Moving along- the fruit trees and grasses created on Day Three, before any life in the water was created, were on land, according to Genesis 1:11 (Hebrew 'erets, also translated as earth, country, ground, field...). But there were no trees or grasses on land before there was life in the water, by a few billion years. No room for wiggling here. Wrong. <BR/><BR/>And so on, as I said. I'll stick with my characterization of the Bible as being "simpleminded". Let's just look at your Psalm verse (104:6-8) supposedly referring to plate tectonics:<BR/><BR/>6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.<BR/>7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.<BR/>8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. <BR/><BR/>Huh? How can this by any stretch of the imagination be construed to be about plate tectonics? It's just talking about God sending the waters this way and that, presumably a recapitulation of the Creation story in Genesis where He parts the waters and allows the land to appear on the third day. This has nothing to do with the motion of tectonic plates. In fact, if we go back one verse in this Psalm we have:<BR/><BR/>5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.<BR/><BR/>"Earth" in Hebrew ('erets, which we have had already in Genesis) can mean the whole earth, or "land", "piece of ground", etc. And "removed" (mowt) is variously translated as "move", "shake", "slip", and "dislodge".<BR/><BR/>So while I presume (not that I'm a Bible scholar) that the most probable meaning of Psalm 104:5 is something like the usual geocentric affirmation that the Earth does not move (another mistake occurring over and over in the Bible), a good case could be made claiming that it means something like "the pieces of ground (i.e. continents) shall never be dislodged". In other words, that plate tectonics is impossible. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if I learned that Alfred Wegener had this verse quoted at him as disproof of his theory of plate tectonics.<BR/><BR/>If you are allowed to pick and choose and interpret as you will, looking for meanings you already know, you can find just about anything you want in the Bible, or in any long poetical text for that matter. That doesn't say anything about science, however.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-22261159214586106522007-05-20T11:32:00.000-07:002007-05-20T11:32:00.000-07:00@ IljaYour arrogance is showing, you’ve just calle...@ Ilja<BR/><BR/>Your arrogance is showing, you’ve just called our ancestor’s society, more backward and superstitious than ours. They might find us crass, in the distance we keep, from each other. I did a little unscientific research, with yahoo yellow pages, and found 19 fortune tellers, within a 10 mile radius of my home. Between the religious and those that trust fate, that’s a lot of superstition.<BR/><BR/>There have been and will always be, at least a few with a deep love of the truth. You may find that in science and self, but reject the Bible. I find it in the Bible and science, only to shun organized religion. <BR/><BR/>I found another bit of philosophy, this time on truth. <BR/><BR/>“Truth, like a modest little flower in the wilderness of life, is surrounded and <I>almost</I> choked by the luxuriant growth of the weeds of error. If you would find it you must be ever on the lookout. If you would see its beauty you must brush aside the weeds of error and the brambles of bigotry. If you would possess it you must stoop to get it. Be not content with <I>one</I> flower of truth. Had one been sufficient there would have been no more. Gather ever, seek for more.”Bible studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285279271865107834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-28037626826149171662007-05-19T12:28:00.000-07:002007-05-19T12:28:00.000-07:00@ BSThanks, but no, thanks. As i already said, i’v...@ BS<BR/><BR/>Thanks, but no, thanks. As i already said, i’ve actually been reading the bible for quite a long time and know enough of it to make the conscious decision not to take it for divine truth, but stories of old times when people knew little about the world and were superstitious. I've been there, believed in god and Christ, but the bible could never give my satisfying answers. Science did. Dealing with real people living here today did. Actively searching for answers in the outside world did. Looking inside myself did. And not a trace of god anywhere to be seen.<BR/><BR/>So no, save you the work of trying to convince me to give up my world view, i’ve tried religion before and my own experience led me to abandon it. There’s nothing it can offer me i don’t already have.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00916512943058406592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-2959021906432646942007-05-19T10:47:00.000-07:002007-05-19T10:47:00.000-07:00@ IljaOops, science changed, again. I was relying ...@ Ilja<BR/><BR/>Oops, science changed, again. I was relying on old information about the brain. <BR/><BR/>Despite it’s ever evolving state, science is not proving the Bible wrong. As a matter of fact, as man finds out more through science, he keeps on proving what some have taken on faith, for centuries.<BR/><BR/>If your reason for disregarding the Bible is a scripture not found, I will continue searching and e-mail you, if you allow.Bible studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285279271865107834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-26976482811333064382007-05-19T08:44:00.000-07:002007-05-19T08:44:00.000-07:00@ BSThat Psalm quote doesn’t say anything about co...@ BS<BR/><BR/>That Psalm quote doesn’t say anything about continental drift, as far as i can tell. Otherwise, if this fact was already stated in the bible, would we have to wait until it was discovered in 1913 by a man (Alfred Wegener), who simply went there and did the physical job of collecting evidence?<BR/><BR/>Where’s that quote about planets, or Earth rotating around the sun?<BR/><BR/>Deuteronomy 23:12-13: come on, to “relieve yourself” “outside the camp”, “dig a hole and cover up your excrement” is not exactly the type of knowledge you need a god to pass to you, do you?<BR/><BR/>Btw, you are using the same passages as those “slanderous websites” (your own words) i've already quoted as poor examples of so-called scientific proof of the bible. Changed your mind already?<BR/><BR/>And what makes you think that “we use such a small percentage of our brain”? Where’s the quote to support that? Or do you have practical evidence? 90% of the brain tissue removed, subject shows no signs of change in behaviour? <A HREF="http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm" REL="nofollow">Utter nonsense</A>. Take a fMRI scan and look at the results.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00916512943058406592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-13696310556091095942007-05-19T06:16:00.000-07:002007-05-19T06:16:00.000-07:00@ IljaThe Bible describes itself at 2 Timothy 3:16...@ Ilja<BR/><BR/>The Bible describes itself at 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.” (American Standard Version)<BR/><BR/>I’ll repeat, the Bible is not a science book, but it is scientifically accurate.<BR/><BR/> Job 26:7 & Isaiah 40:22 talk about the earth's place in the solar system.<BR/><BR/>Infection and quarantine are discussed at Leviticus 13:52 & Leviticus 13:46, respectively. <BR/><BR/>Disease prevention at Deuteronomy 23:12, 13. <BR/><BR/>I think Psalm 104:6, 8 are speaking of plate tectonics. <BR/><BR/>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ <BR/><BR/>If the Bible doesn’t cover your topic, stick around. Since we use such a small percentage of our brain, the answers may be obvious once we are returned to the perfection Adam was given. Until then there is no prohibition of science found in the Bible. <BR/><BR/>An observation that zilch made, was that the Bible was simpleminded, considering these subjects, that view may be unfounded.<BR/><BR/>Oh, maybe Mary had Japanese doctors. ;-)Bible studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285279271865107834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-51431313247368670432007-05-19T04:19:00.000-07:002007-05-19T04:19:00.000-07:00@ Bible student“If the Bible is incorrect, it can’...@ Bible student<BR/><BR/>“If the Bible is incorrect, it can’t be trusted.”<BR/><BR/>If the bible gets some basic facts right, that doesn’t mean the whole load of mystical pseudo-truths is necessarily correct. Give me some quotes about continental drift, the basic structure of the solar system (its solar centric nature would suffice), electricity, cells as the building blocks of living tissue and any other method of dealing with diseases, other than prayer, first.<BR/><BR/>And, contrary to what bible says, the male sex is much less probable to have been created first, because females contribute to each new living being to about 99%. Compare the size of an egg cell to a sperm cell, and the time each of the parents is actively investing into the development of the embryo? 5 minutes vs. 9 months, maybe? Males are just a tool to make sexual reproduction with all of its benefits (which i’ve already laid out earlier) possible. There are examples of species where females are capable to <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis" REL="nofollow">reproduce without the need for males</A>. And Virgin Mary is the best known example of the same phenomenon occurring among humans as well. ;)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00916512943058406592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-6437518633323911022007-05-18T16:45:00.000-07:002007-05-18T16:45:00.000-07:00@ zilchThough the Bible is not a science book, cre...@ zilch<BR/><BR/>Though the Bible is not a science book, creation is presented in the proper order.<BR/><BR/>Stop me if you disagree.<BR/><BR/>1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. <BR/><BR/>Stars, our sun and moon and the earth can all be included in that statement. <BR/><BR/>You said, “Here we clearly have the Earth, and water, created before there was light.” about: <BR/>Genesis 1:2,3 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.<BR/><BR/>Most science models of the early earth include overcast, whether from volcanic ash or greenhouse gasses, that surely would have obscured the sun and moon. <BR/><BR/>I found a description of the current conditions on the surface of Venus at www.answers.com/topic/venus <BR/><BR/><I>Because its cloud layer reflects to space about 75% of the incident sunlight, Venus actually absorbs less solar energy than does the Earth. Rather, the high temperature is the result of a very efficient greenhouse effect that allows a small but significant fraction of the incident sunlight to penetrate to the surface (about 2.5%), but prevents all except a negligible fraction of the heat generated by the surface from escaping directly to space.</I><BR/><BR/>Warm and dark, to this day the only way to “see” the terrain of that planet is with radar.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, as the overcast lessened over the millenniums, photosynthesis would be possible, even before the luminaries were visible in the sky. So “grasses before the Sun and Moon” is quite possible. (Genesis 1:11,14)<BR/><BR/>The Hebrew words are different too. Ohr for light in Genesis 1:3 and maohr for source of light at Genesis 1:14.<BR/><BR/>As to, “fruit trees before life in the water”<BR/>I wonder, if vegetation is necessary to feed the animals, how does it reproduce except by fruit.<BR/><BR/>If the Bible is incorrect, it can’t be trusted.<BR/>If the student is incorrect, he can learn.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to list more misconceptions, I enjoy the research.Bible studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285279271865107834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-90489034602919513252007-05-18T04:59:00.000-07:002007-05-18T04:59:00.000-07:00@ Wil Just an experiment. I used the phrases, that...@ Wil <BR/><BR/>Just an experiment. <BR/><BR/>I used the phrases, that you inserted into “the paragraph” to form another, to see if it was confusing. <BR/><BR/>I wouldn’t have stayed in that church either, if I had “no genuine faith in myself.” I’ve found the internet much more satisfying when I “need a quick answer“.<BR/><BR/>Where I did attend, most “did not want to serve themselves“, so they daydreamed or slept in view of “the creation of a false deity” which was in “desperate need for meaning.”<BR/><BR/>It worked. Or is this a paradox?Bible studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285279271865107834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-23200265551994883512007-05-18T01:21:00.000-07:002007-05-18T01:21:00.000-07:00@ Bible student- of course, as an atheist, I belie...@ Bible student- of course, as an atheist, I believe that all the references to God do make the Bible a work of fiction.<BR/><BR/>But you don't have to be an atheist to see that there are lots ofmistakes in the Bible. I'm sure you've heard all these before, and they are explained better than I can do elsewhere. I'll just mention that the account of the Creation in Genesis doesn't jibe with our modern scientific understanding of astronomy, geology, and biology. Even if we grant millions of years for each "day" as the OEC's do, the order is still wrong. Starting right at the beginning (I hope the KJV is okay with you- it's still my favorite translation):<BR/><BR/>1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.<BR/><BR/>1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.<BR/><BR/>1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. <BR/><BR/>Here we clearly have the Earth, and water, created before there was light. This is simply wrong. There has been light for nearly the entire age of the Universe, around 14 billion years. The Earth is "only" about 4.5 billion years old.<BR/><BR/>And the chronological mistakes go on- grasses before the Sun and Moon, birds before any other land animal, fruit trees before life in the water, and so forth. All wrong.<BR/><BR/>Of course, many Christians say that Genesis is allegorical and not to be taken literally. But if this is so, how can we know what to take literally, and what is myth? How can we trust a book said to be the Word of God that is riddled with mistakes?zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627394959317905553.post-19911449350636609732007-05-17T21:45:00.000-07:002007-05-17T21:45:00.000-07:00@BSI'm not sure you're even on the same topic as m...@BS<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure you're even on the same topic as me anymore...<BR/><BR/>I understand what you're saying, but on terms of relevance even the term 'tangent' is a massive understatement. <BR/><BR/>And I'm far from a 'believer' ;)Wilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09081035767898700065noreply@blogger.com