User Tag List

Page 1 of 43 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 510

Thread: The Bible . . . And SCIENCE!

  1. #1
    Pathway Machinist The Theist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Laurasia, New Pangea
    Posts
    771
    Threads
    38
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    13
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    The Bible . . . And SCIENCE!

    Okay. It has been difficult to distinguish, in many cases, on this forum, who is theist and who is atheist etc. nomenclatures infinity . . . but who here besides myself couldn't give a rodent's rectum about science, huh?

    Douglas Adams was fun. Frank Herbert was my favorite writer, but really, science class? Actually I got detention in science class for reading Douglas Adams and laughing out loud in class, long before LOL was all the craze!

    Lets talk science!

    The Bible is often criticized from the atheistic science minded folk as being not only out of sinc with science but even opposed to it. Nonsense! Although the Bible is by no means a science text book, when it touches on science it is accurate.

    Challenge that.

  2. #2
    Indoctrinated
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,365
    Threads
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It would depend on what you define as "touching on science". Many shipbuilders (including one on this forum) have decried the tale of the Arc as farcical because a ship as large as described would collapse in the water if made out of "gopherwood".
    Quote Quote by: LetThereBe View Post
    when counting the percentage of scientists that believe in the theory of evolution pseudo-scientists are intentionally left out

  3. #3
    Pathway Machinist The Theist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Laurasia, New Pangea
    Posts
    771
    Threads
    38
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    13
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: el ايمان View Post
    It would depend on what you define as "touching on science". Many shipbuilders (including one on this forum) have decried the tale of the Arc as farcical because a ship as large as described would collapse in the water if made out of "gopherwood".
    Hmm. Interesting, el ايمان, I've never come across that sort of explanation. Elaborate or introduce me to this shipbuilder or whatever, just don't leave me a link. I can't read everything on the Internet.

    ETA: Oh, and good point about the clarification of "touching on science." Lets leave it open to interpretation.

  4. #4
    Homo sapiens
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,646
    Threads
    186
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: The Theist View Post
    Okay. It has been difficult to distinguish, in many cases, on this forum, who is theist and who is atheist etc. nomenclatures infinity . . . but who here besides myself couldn't give a rodent's rectum about science, huh?
    I think that only those who are ignorant and wish to remain so don't give a rat's tootie about science. Science is the explanation for the world around us. Science has yielded the internal combustion engine, the light bulb and the power grid to support it, computers, increased agricultural yields and more efficient harvest methods, artificial satellites that give us GPS, satellite TV and radio, prosthetic shoe inserts to correct foot problems, artificial joints that turn cripples into functioning people again, X-rays, CAT scans, MRIs, bone grafts, nerve grafts, hydraulic brakes, electronic ignition systems, ABS, LED, LCD, and plasma TV displays, HD TV, 3D HD TV, and on and on - from your sh*t, shower and shave in the morning to the linen on your bed at night. Science pervades your very being from the tomatoes, corn, and beef you eat, to the paper you use to wipe your ass. But you're a user - not one who contributes.
    Douglas Adams was fun.
    Adams wrote fiction, and comedy to boot. Not relevant to your point. But I suspect that you don't understand that.
    Frank Herbert was my favorite writer,
    Herbert also wrote fiction that had nothing to do with science.
    but really, science class?
    You've pretty much revealed you intellectual capacity. It seems that science is somewhere above that.
    Actually I got detention in science class for reading Douglas Adams and laughing out loud in class, long before LOL was all the craze!
    So you prefer fantasy to reality, like Adams, Herbert and the Bible.
    Lets talk science!
    Oh! Lets!
    The Bible is often criticized from the atheistic science minded folk as being not only out of sinc [sic] with science but even opposed to it. Nonsense! Although the Bible is by no means a science text book, when it touches on science it is accurate.
    How narrow minded! Atheism does not mean science. Nor does science mean atheism. I have never seen the the Bible criticized by anyone as being either "out of sinc [sic]" or "opposed to science." The Bible isn't scientific by any consideration and doesn't touch on science. The Bible is the mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen. Only those who are blinded by faith in mythology claim that the Bible ever touches on science and is accurate when it does so. Can you give me 10 examples?
    Challenge that.
    Indeed. I await your 10 examples.
    Quote Quote by: The Theist View Post
    Hmm. Interesting, el ايمان, I've never come across that sort of explanation. Elaborate or introduce me to this shipbuilder or whatever, just don't leave me a link. I can't read everything on the Internet.
    I don't think it was a ship builder - I think it was me and a article that I posted and that has been around the web. I'm not a shipbuilder but I at least took the time to research the topic. Something that you don't ever seem to do. It isn't that the ship would collapse. It would leak. The title of the article is That Boat Don't Float. Here it is.

    In 1909 the schooner Wyoming was launched from the Percy & Small shipyard in Bath, Maine. She was state-of-the art in wooden hulled shipbuilding. She was a six masted schooner and, at 329 ft., the longest ship with an all wood keel and hull ever built. She was the last of nine wooden hulled, six-masted schooners built between 1900 and 1909, and one of seven built by Percy & Small. All were 300 ft. or more in length. They were all state-of-the art.

    The Wyoming had 90 steel crossbraces. Even while she was yet on the drawing boards the marine engineers who designed and built her knew from experience with shorter ships that the length of the Wyoming would exceed the structural limits of wood. For this reason they attempted to defeat, or at least support, the laws of physics and the principles of marine engineering with steel. It was to no avail. Not even the steel bracing could prevent the flexing and twisting that resulted in the separation of the hull planking. The Wyoming required constant pumping, as did her sister ships. The Wyoming leaked from the day she hit the water until the day, 14 years later, when she foundered and broke up off of Monomoy Island while riding out a storm at anchor.

    It is said that she could be seen to snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to the mid-ship) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to the mid-ship) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any caulking that could be devised. The Wyoming and her sisters were used, for the most part, for short, close-in coastal hauls, generally in sight of land. At the first sign if inclement weather, they could run for port. The Wyoming served for several years as a coal hauler, as did several of her sisters.

    I have always had a great love for windjammers. I have some very expensive books that deal with the minutia of their construction and for years my hobby was to build full rigged wooden models. I spent hours climbing over the decks of the U.S.S. Constitution in Charleston Navy Yard, admiring her construction. The Wyoming must have been a beautiful vessel. But she was a beautiful anachronism. At about 300 ft. the structural capabilities of wood were exceeded beyond the abilities of engineering and design to remedy

    Few other ships of this size were built of wood. One exception was the four-masted medium clipper barque, Great Republic built in 1853. She is sometimes reported as the longest wooden ship ever build with a length of 334 feet, but more usually it is claimed that she was 325 feet. The Great Republic also had 90 steel cross braces, 4 inches wide, 1 inch thick, and 36 feet long. Nevertheless, she sprung her hull in a storm off of Bermuda. She was abandoned when the water in the hold reached 15 feet.

    And yet, creationists want me to believe that a 450 ft. (minimum) vessel of ALL wood construction was able to withstand a storm of 40 days and then remain at sea for almost a year, manned by only eight people, without the efficient pumps of the turn of the century, chalked with nothing more than "pitch inside and out". Not to mention the overwhelming necessity of the limited crew to feed and water thousands of animals and to muck out thousands of pens (and then carry the result of the mucking up two decks in order to throw it overboard). When was there time for pumping (24 hours a day if the above is any indication) and the constant recalking in a futile attempt to stem the flow.

    You may perceive this as an argument from incredulity similar to those that are so typical of creationists, but I just can't believe such a fairy tale. Experience with real wooden ships sailing in real oceans indicates that Noah's ark would not have survived many days of the 40 day storm.

    My opinion of Noah's ark is that that boat don't float.
    ETA: Oh, and good point about the clarification of "touching on science." Lets leave it open to interpretation.
    Let's not. Either you discuss science or you don't. You don't. You discuss mythology. The Bible doesn't "touch on science." The Bible is a book of mythology and religious law. Nothing more. Get a grip.

  5. #5
    Life's A Ball! loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ether
    Posts
    1,999
    Threads
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Bible is a:

    History Book
    Geography Book
    Astronomy Book
    Physics Book
    Psychology Book
    Geology Book
    Chemistry Book
    Biology Book
    Mathematics Book
    and more including Poetry, Prose, Songs and even Riddles.

    There is not a single book in all of man's history that comes close to the knowledge contained within its pages.

    The ONE thing that it is NOT is a book of mythology.

    Of course, uneducated and unintelligent people can't see that

    The reason is simple: it reveals truths that they don't want to acknowledge.

    There are many things that seem impossible: from iron ships to airplanes, but science can explain them all.
    There is only one right answer and, yet, you still argue with me..

    I'm the proof that evolution works...

    You're the proof that it doesn't.


    Ask your doctor if thinking is right for you.

  6. #6
    Destroyer of Worlds minorwork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    central Illinois
    Posts
    10,690
    Threads
    172
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: The Theist View Post
    ETA: Oh, and good point about the clarification of "touching on science." Lets leave it open to interpretation.
    Open to interpretation? Not very scientific at all. What happened to your great reliance on science? You're making me doubt there is any understanding of science in your arguments. Best stick to faith. Ignorance.

    Persuade me you know of science and provide a link better than this. Science, the Doubt Factory. No, that essay does not do much for faith, that's for sure. Thank goodness for that.

    There is reason behind the concept that what most Bible Thumpers refer to as faith, while pointing to references in the Bible, are sadly mistaking the word's righteous denotation, concentrating, to their detriment, on its connotations. Faith, to be truth related knowledge, references truths determined by proper science which depends on the right application of the null hypotheses and so is not intuitive to most. Instead, the Thumpers go for the easy interpretation that perversely appeals to emotional appetites, holding attention on and making noble those whores, Desire and Attachment, which glorifies actions based on belief without evidence, based on wishes, fantasy, base desire and irresponsibility, anything to sate those needs. A sad, sad desecration of the truth of G_d and ITS Voice of Truth, Science.

    Intentional ignorance, that desecrating fraud, lauds itself over truth as it preys upon those in pain, those suffering despair, and those facing early death. Its silk tongued priests dance around, but not within, that Unapproachable Light of Empirical Experience that flows, as a mighty current, in and out of that Holy Place of Truth, that bastion of knowledge, Science. If only obstinacy, volume, and numbers would turn ignorance to truth, Bible thumpers would prevail. But inevitably, blinded from their misconstrued notion of faith adulterated by ignorance, they are led on to preach the requirements of salvation, of eternal life NOT from that raised dais, the Throne of Truth, Science, but from the remote depths of an unknowable afterlife occupied by their god, Ignorance, blindly heeding the promises of a false god that salvation is to be had from carrying that Abomination of Desolation, Intentional Ignorance, into the Holy Place of Science.


    "Many errors, of a truth, consist merely in the application of the wrong names of things." ~ Spinoza
    If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.

    When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.

  7. #7
    Igneous Magma sthack99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    312
    Threads
    14
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: The Theist View Post
    The Bible is often criticized from the atheistic science minded folk as being not only out of sinc with science but even opposed to it. Nonsense! Although the Bible is by no means a science text book, when it touches on science it is accurate.
    Examples?


    BTW....calling bats birds seems pretty INaccurate to me....

  8. #8
    Igneous Magma sthack99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    312
    Threads
    14
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: loser View Post
    The Bible is a:

    History Book
    Actually, many of the "facts" mentioned in the Bible regarding the wars in that time are inaccurate, so....next!

    Geography Book
    Um....considering it only touches on a very small geographical area compared to the entire planet, I'd say this is quite incorrect as well. Next!

    Astronomy Book
    HAHAHAHAHA!!!! So stars are actually hanging from a tent like object surrounding the Earth? And planets and stars are formed in only a few days? And planets are made before their neighboring star? And the moon is a light source? Have you actually studied one piece of astronomy???

    Physics Book
    Where in the Bible is physics EVER mentioned??

    Psychology Book
    Well, this I can kind of see this, since you're able to see how twisted people get when they're indoctrinated in to a cult.

    Geology Book
    Geology says a global flood never happened.

    Chemistry Book
    Again, where in the Bible is chemistry EVER mentioned??

    Biology Book
    Bats are birds, and donkeys talk. Sure....

    Mathematics Book
    I don't recall learning Calculus, or even basic arithmetic, when I read the bible.


    Got anything else?

  9. #9
    Macho Christian
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,742
    Threads
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: sthack99 View Post
    Examples?


    BTW....calling bats birds seems pretty INaccurate to me....
    It still amazes me when people use sound bites in such an important debate. You do know the Hebrew word translated 'bird' there is the same word which starts the classifation of insects in the next section? It is a general term which means winged or flying creature. The fact that the translators used the English word 'bird' means absolutely nothing regarding modern day classifications of the same term which excludes bats and the like.
    The heart has its reason which reason does not know.” - Blaise Pascal
    "chewtabacachewtabacachewtabaca-spit" - Blake Shelton

  10. #10
    Igneous Magma sthack99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    312
    Threads
    14
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: Questatement View Post
    It still amazes me when people use sound bites in such an important debate. You do know the Hebrew word translated 'bird' there is the same word which starts the classifation of insects in the next section? It is a general term which means winged or flying creature. The fact that the translators used the English word 'bird' means absolutely nothing regarding modern day classifications of the same term which excludes bats and the like.
    Either way, it's still not very scientific, and definitely doesn't sound like the words of an all knowing being. More like the words of ignorant men. Of course birds and bats look like they belong in the same category if you know nothing about them, other than they can both fly.

  11. #11
    Macho Christian
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,742
    Threads
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A bat being a flying creature is not scientific? I'm pretty sure the readers understood the intent which was to avoid eating this list of creatures. The groupings were for convenience sake.

    Should God have given it a separate paragraph/grouping just for you because modern day groupings of insects and birds exclude the bat?
    The heart has its reason which reason does not know.” - Blaise Pascal
    "chewtabacachewtabacachewtabaca-spit" - Blake Shelton

  12. #12
    Pathway Machinist The Theist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Laurasia, New Pangea
    Posts
    771
    Threads
    38
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    13
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: gallo View Post
    I think that only those who are ignorant and wish to remain so don't give a rat's tootie about science.
    Oh, boy! I think we got a live one!

    I have never had an interest in science so I'm fairly ignorant of the subject, much like you are probably ignorant of the Bible. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Our own interests.

    Quote Quote by: gallo View Post
    Science is the explanation for the world around us.
    The attempted fallible explanation of the world around us. Testing the viscosity of katsup, for example.

    Quote Quote by: gallo View Post
    Science has yielded the internal combustion engine, the light bulb and the power grid to support it, computers, increased agricultural yields and more efficient harvest methods, artificial satellites that give us GPS, satellite TV and radio, prosthetic shoe inserts to correct foot problems, artificial joints that turn cripples into functioning people again, X-rays, CAT scans, MRIs, bone grafts, nerve grafts, hydraulic brakes, electronic ignition systems, ABS, LED, LCD, and plasma TV displays, HD TV, 3D HD TV, and on and on - from your sh*t, shower and shave in the morning to the linen on your bed at night. Science pervades your very being from the tomatoes, corn, and beef you eat, to the paper you use to wipe your ass. But you're a user - not one who contributes.
    Oh, boy! Science invented all things great and wonderful! Er . . . what about thermonuclear and biological warfare?

    Quote Quote by: gallo View Post
    You've pretty much revealed you intellectual capacity. It seems that science is somewhere above that.

    Atheism does not mean science. Nor does science mean atheism. I have never seen the the Bible criticized by anyone as being either "out of sinc [sic]" or "opposed to science." The Bible isn't scientific by any consideration and doesn't touch on science. The Bible is the mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen. Only those who are blinded by faith in mythology claim that the Bible ever touches on science and is accurate when it does so. Can you give me 10 examples?

    Indeed. I await your 10 examples.
    Okay, well, I'm going to add those in separate posts within this thread, because it would be to long for one post and that will give everyone the opportunity to respond to whichever separate point they would like to respond to. While I'm doing that why don't you provide the names of the scientists who invented, from your list above: the light bulb, the power grid to support it, computers, increased agricultural yields, more efficient harvest methods, artificial satellites, GPS, satellite TV and radio, prosthetic shoe inserts, artificial joints, X-rays, CAT scans, MRIs, bone grafts, nerve grafts, hydraulic brakes, electronic ignition systems, ABS, LED, LCD, plasma TV displays, HD TV, and 3D HD TV.

    Quote Quote by: gallo View Post
    I'm not a shipbuilder but I at least took the time to research the topic. Something that you don't ever seem to do.
    How the hell would you know? I'll do the first one: The internal combustion engine was invented by Jean Joseph Étienne Lenoir, an engineer.

    Quote Quote by: gallo View Post
    It isn't that the ship would collapse. It would leak. The title of the article is That Boat Don't Float. Here it is.
    I've removed the long and nearly pointless story, but it can be referenced from above.

    1 of 10 Noah's Ark

    Noah's ark was designed to carry Noah and his family along with animals through the global deluge of 2370 - 2369 B.C.E. The ark (Hebrew tevah, Greek kibotos) was rectangular, a chest, actually, having square corners and a flat bottom. It was designed simply to float, without the need of steering and to be watertight. This shape, not only would make capsizing very improbable but also allowed for one third more space. The roof had a 4% pitch, 1 cubit elevation - 25 cubits from wall to ridge, which allowed for water flow off.

    It was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. The ancient cubit was 17.5 in. (44.5 cm), although some think it nearer 56 or 61 cm. which means the ark measured 437 ft 6 in x 72 ft 11 in x 43 ft 9 in. (133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m) which is less than half the length of the Queen Elizabeth II. The proportion of length to width being 6 to 1 is also used by modern naval architects.

    It had approximately 1, 400, 000 cu ft (40,000 cu m) in gross volume, with a displacement comparable to the 883 ft (269 m) Titanic. It was strengthened internally by the addition of two floors. With three decks it would have a total of approximately 96, 000 sq ft (8, 900 sq m) of space.

    For light and ventilation there was an opening a cubit in height near the roof which extended around the four sides, 1, 500 sq ft (140 s1 m).

    The wood used was of a resinous tree, probably cypress or similar. Cypress was favored by shipbuilders such as the Phoenicians and Alaxander the Great, even to the present day. Noah was instructed not only to caulk the seams but to cover the ark inside and outside with tar.

    Bitumen And Pitch

    Bitumen is a black or brownish asphalt. There are three Hebrew words which describe first it's degree of hardness: zepheth is pitch, the liquid form and chemar is bitumen, it's solid state. Kopher, tar, describes it's usage. An application overlaying woodwork. The ark which Moses as a baby floated down the Nile was covered with both bitumen and pitch, rendering it watertight (Exodus 2:3) and the builders of Babylon used the bitumen for not only its waterproofing but its adhesiveness for mortar in kiln dried bricks. (Genesis 11:3)

    Cargo

    Noah's ark had, without a doubt, a most interesting passenger list. Noah, his wife, three sons and their wives as well as two of every sort of animal, seven of each of the animals considered to be clean. Also food for over a year. Many people grossly overestimate the number of animals involved here because they don't understand that the Bible means every kind, a term which differs a great deal from the biological term. There wasn't a need, for example for Noah to include every breed of dog or cat, just two or 7 (if clean) of each.

    It has been estimated that 43 kinds of mammals, 74 kinds of birds and 10 kinds of reptiles could have produced the variety of species known today. A more liberal estimate is 72 kinds of quadruped and less than 200 kinds of bird kinds would have sufficed. There is about 1, 300, 000 species of animals but 60% of those are insects. Of the 24, 000 amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, 9, 000 are are reptiles and amphibians and 10, 000 are birds - many of which could have survived outside the ark.

    Of the 5, 000 mammals, which would include whales and porpoises who would have stayed outside the ark, 290 are larger than a sheep and 1, 360 are smaller than rats.

    Plenty of room for Noah's family as well as for all animals and their food
    Last edited by The Theist; 10th May 2012 at 03:40 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •