Jump to content
IGNORED

SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE


KiwiChristian

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

There are no scientific problems in the bible? 

In Genesis 1:1, the earth and "heaven" are created together "in the beginning," whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.7 billion years old, respectively.

In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3) and the sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite.

 (1:3) Let there be light
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). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

 (1:16a) God made the two great lights.
"The greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light; it only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky?

This is just the start of genesis. This isn't scientifically accurate... this doesn't reflect our scientific understanding.

Also eve came from Adams rib...scientifically accurate? Please demonstrate the scientific understanding to support this? 

Someone requoted pillars..The earth is on pillars like a chair?  The chair legs sit on the earth.. what do these pillars sit on? 

It seems to me one can have faith the bible is true... the same as any other religious book but to say it has no scientific problems like any other is misguided. 

Also you are adding in part the understanding from science... so for example..."Behold the height of the stars, how high they are." Job 22:12.

How is this scientific..a 2 year old could look up in the night sky and see they are high up.. can see they can be hidden by the clouds which are high up then remerge as the clouds pass..ie clouds aren't as high. What would have been scientific is if the bible said how far they are and how that was reached. In any case doesn't it say elsewhere the stars are angels? Scientific?  Please demonstrate

Edited by Kevinb
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 6/25/2017 at 11:49 PM, KiwiChristian said:

4. Telephone Communication.

"Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, here we are?" Job 38:35. When we dial a telephone number, an electric current (lightning or electricity as we know it) moves through a wire to our friend's telephone, which rings a bell. He answers it and says "Hello, it's ...... here." We then both have a conversation over long distance. The telephone works exactly as Job 38:35 says, yet man did not invent it until 1876. God revealed the telephone to Job in 1520BC, 3400 years before AG Bell invented it.

When you say the Bible makes scientific claims, I think it needs to be a bit more specific than the examples you tend to provide.  I don't see this as remotely scientific.  

On 6/25/2017 at 11:49 PM, KiwiChristian said:

1. The Earth Hangs in Space.

"He hangs the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7 stated 1500BC.
Until modern times "experts" believed ideas such as the earth sat on four elephants, who stood on a giant turtle, who swam in the ocean. Man could not imagine how the earth could hang in space on nothing. Yet this is what happens due to gravitational attraction between the earth and the sun, giving the appearance that the earth hangs on nothing.

So "scientifically" the verse is wrong, the Earth DOES "hang" from something....gravity.  

 

Also, feel free to check the commentary from Matthew Henry, John Gill etc on these verses and you'll see that the interpretation from them is something quite different than what you're offering.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

The life of the flesh is in the blood." Leviticus 17:11.

It seems easy to pick apart every so called piece of science here... I'm sure people witnessed others dying from blood loss injuries... surely it's just obvious to note that those who loose masses of blood die...ergo the line in Leviticus. No doubt this was realised long before the bible too. If the bible detailed a scientific and medical understanding of what occurs during blood loss then the statement would be way ahead of its time and remarkable..but as is it's just very basic observation and not remarkable at all to me. 

 

"I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat." Gen 1:29
Since many plants have evolved poisons to protect against animals including humans that would eat them if we did some would make us seriously ill or worse

 

All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas etc -- all were strict vegetarians? As they were created by God. Gen.1:30 . Clearly not what science tells us about such creatures.

Edited by Kevinb
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  176
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  870
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   330
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/22/1968

8 hours ago, Kevinb said:

The life of the flesh is in the blood." Leviticus 17:11.

It seems easy to pick apart every so called piece of science here... I'm sure people witnessed others dying from blood loss injuries... surely it's just obvious to note that those who loose masses of blood die...ergo the line in Leviticus. No doubt this was realised long before the bible too. If the bible detailed a scientific and medical understanding of what occurs during blood loss then the statement would be way ahead of its time and remarkable..but as is it's just very basic observation and not remarkable at all to me. 

 

"I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat." Gen 1:29
Since many plants have evolved poisons to protect against animals including humans that would eat them if we did some would make us seriously ill or worse

 

All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas etc -- all were strict vegetarians? As they were created by God. Gen.1:30 . Clearly not what science tells us about such creatures.

re: your first point re: blood.

 

Why did they BLEED people? Some to death. One of the US presidents died because of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Whether people were bled as such in some sacrificial way... I'm sure they were but people would have died from injury..attack..warring too. The Roman army was a professional outfit rarely matched. In any case you don't think there was pretty much constant fighting killing over land and all sorts of other reasons? I think it would have been evident that people could die from blood loss injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

In Genesis, the bible claims that many animals were created during one period, fully formed. This fits in with the Cambrian explosion:

Quote

wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion   The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted by William Buckland in the 1840s,[17] and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection.[18] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.

The evidence of species appearing seemingly abruptly, without precursor completely favors the biblical perspective rather than the widely accepted view of evolution.

Edited by ARGOSY
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  45
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  124
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   95
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/16/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 6/26/2017 at 9:03 AM, Enoch2021 said:

d.  Scientifically Validate 'The PULLING' Mechanism...?

It isn't called "pulling", but Gravitational Attraction and it was studied especially by Isaac Newton, a scientist that lived for God. His number of studies in science is a quarter of all his studies in theology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

50 minutes ago, mat007 said:

It isn't called "pulling"...

I was responding to "KiwiChirstian's" Claim...

KiwiChristian: "gravity pulling them downwards."

 

Quote

but Gravitational Attraction and it was studied especially by Isaac Newton

The 'scientific community' doesn't follow Newtonian gravity...

"...Einstein created his general theory of relativity—which provides our modern understanding of gravity—with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
 
 
Quote

a scientist that lived for God.

Confirm Please (the lived for God Part)...?

 

Quote

His number of studies in science is a quarter of all his studies in theology.

He was also a Free Mason --(SEE: Luciferian) and quite the alchemist.

 

regards 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Supported by the Cambrian explosion?  Well this is millions of years ago too... how's that supported by the bible?   this cambrian explosion is still 100s of thousands of years plus.  We're lucky to have any fossils ... not complete for all branches but evolution doesn't hang solely on this record of course. Investigate embryology to corroberate evolution...dolphins developing hind legs.. that gets aborted as the dolphin develops. Vestigial hind leg remnants remain in the developed adult body.. go research...search pics... even museums with the skeletal layout of dolphins whales snakes with show this. Human foetus developing a covering of hair that later in development is lost. Just 2 examples. Francis Collins who is religious and head of the genome project said Dna mapping alone is enough to prove common ancestry..ie evolution.  We've mapped the human genome now of course... humans have dna remnants for developing egg sacks.. search for chromosome 2..search for mapping neandathol dna.. most modern day humans have 1 to 3 % neandathol dna in their code. Scientists are even now attributing some modern medical conditions to this part of our make up. Modern medicine is increasingly tailored to an individual's dna.. childhood leukaemia.. and cancer is next more than it was. This isn't in dispute by those that are in the field. Speciation..  should be read also...lots of great stuff and lectures out there.

The germ theory of disease I'll assume isn't in dispute..evolution theory is just as established but I understand why most Christians here are duty bound to attack the later. 

Also on pillars... this is the flat earth nonsense again but where are they?  What are they made of? What are the pillars standing on..a flying turtle maybe? What's the corroberative evidence to support pillars. Using scripture to prove scripture for pillars is a circular reasoning fallacy of course.

Edited by Kevinb
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  897
  • Topics Per Day:  0.19
  • Content Count:  9,621
  • Content Per Day:  2.03
  • Reputation:   5,821
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/07/2011
  • Status:  Offline

On 6/26/2017 at 11:03 AM, Enoch2021 said:
Quote

gravity pulling them downwards

1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?

b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?

c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

d.  Scientifically Validate 'The PULLING' Mechanism...?

Gravity is the opposing pushing forces of space against mass.

  • Loved it! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...