The Bible as Science

[Lagboltz]

"The bible does state that the earth goes round the sun"

Correct me if I'm wrong but the last time I checked the earth does revolve around the sun.
Thank you, Dawky, for providing yet another true scientific statement from the Bible.

Psalms 102, 25-26, NKJV
Of old You laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
26 They will perish, but You will endure;
Yes, they will all grow old like a garment;

This is an accurate description of the 2cd Law of Thermodynamics. No new energy has been created since the beginning of the universe. But existing energy has changed form many times, much the way an auto engine converts chemical energy in gasoline into mechanical energy to move the auto. The amount of useable energy has been steadily declining since the instant of creation. Entropy is the normal state for everything in the universe: You and I and my car and everything in the universe is wearing out... Running down... Getting old. Entropy refers to the level of organization in a system and the level of organization in our universe has been declining for around 14B years.
These verses explain entropy in the level of language that uneducated nomadic herders of 3000 years ago could understand. The analogy to a garment growing old is near perfect. When the garment is new the colors are bright, the stitching is intact, the garment is clean and fully functional as designed. As the garment is worn colors fade, seams come loose, buttons fall off, etc. This deteriorations begins the moment the garment is completed and does not stop until the garment is retired. Eventually even the material itself will decay are return to elemental form. From a high level or organization to disorder is the norm for our universe.
These verses, written circa 1000 BC explain the effects of entropy on our universe correctly and in understandable language.
The Bible explained entropy 3000 years before Western Science did.

I really don't see how you can possibly be so excited and think that the bible is so important in revealing entropy. The Psalms quote is not the best layman description of entropy. Caveman and most animals recognize that once food rots it can no longer un-rot, (i.e. become less disordered). If a nest falls to the ground, it will not rise back up on it's own. I would even say that animals discovered and understood that form of entropy long before man came into existence on the earth.

Also I'm sure that in the millennia before the Bible cavemen knew that their garment, most likely an animal fir would not last in prime condition forever.

In your OP and title, “The Bible as Science”you are confusing Science with Divine Inspiration.

 

[Dr.Who]

Oh and here's some more science

People used to live to be 800 years old

Hands up who believes that?

And anyone who is stupid enough to do so, please explain how the hip, knee and ankle joints lasted so long?

With no medication

At a time of hard manual work

And no motor vehicles

Ha ha ha

More biblical science

Weird that most scientists are atheists when there's all this science in the bible

Will the sun rise tomorrow? It has risen every day that I have ever observed it. It has risen every day that any one I know to have commented on it has seen it. In fact, there is not a single living person who presently claims that the sun has failed to rise on any day of their life. Does this prove that the sun will rise tomorrow? Or the next day? Or the day after that?

It would be a classic error of logic to think that just because the sun has risen every day in my observation that it must always do so. In fact, I have many reasons to think that some day the sun will burn out and then will not rise any more.

The same error of logic takes place if one thinks that just because in all of our observation no one has lived to be 800 that therefore one ever has or ever will. Do we need a possible natural explanation to believe it? We could suppose that before a great cataclismic Earth changing event that the very nature of our atmosphere was different and that at a time when our genetic pool was closer to pure that people lived longer. We could, but we don't need to since all that would be needed would be for God to continually heal the daily ravages of time. If I appeal to a miracle instead of to a natural explanation am I automatically wrong? If you think so then you are biased against supernaturalism. A person who truly aspires to be think like a scientist cannot accept a bias against supernaturalism.

By the way, I still can be heard to say on many days that I have seen the sun rise or set. Does this in any way mean that I do not know the Earth revolves around the Sun? No, I clearly know that the Earth revolves around the sun and yet I have zero difficulty in describing it phenomenonologically - as it appears rather than as it is. None of us do. And neither did the authors of the bible. And lets all be clear that describing the sun as rising and setting is in no way the same as describing the sun as going around the earth.

Oh and about most scientists being atheists: about 2% of the American population are atheists and more than 5% of of the American population are scientists.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

85% of the royal society are atheists

Your argument above about inductive reasoning is childish

All you are saying is anything is possible and that commits you with equal validity to accepting elves and fairies and George Bush's brain

But in the tiny span of human life we have to deal with the probable

And the probability of people living to 800 years because god mended them is low enough to warrant the tag impossible

If you think that the miracle explanation trumps the it never happened explanation you have mental health issues

As the great Richard Dawkins says...if you hear the clippety clop of hooves behind you rule out the possibility of it being a horse before you start working on the hypothesis that is a unicorn

Which is a variant of occams razor

You should shave with it

 

[Lagboltz]

According to wikipedia “Book of Genesis”, tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC”

Scholars generally think Hesiod, a Greek, wrote about Chaos, a nothingness, between 750 and 650 BC. His writings predate the estimated writings of the Genesis. Here are some excerpts from Bulfinch's Mythology.

“Before earth and sea and heaven were created, all things wore one aspect, ... Chaos- a confused and shapeless mass, .... Earth, sea, and air were all mixed up together; so the earth was not solid, the sea was not fluid, and the air was not transparent. God and Nature at last interposed, and put an end to this discord, separating earth from sea, and heaven from both.

Here some god... appointed rivers and bays their places, raised mountains, scooped out valleys, distributed woods, fountains, fertile fields. and stony plains.... Prometheus took some of this earth, and kneading it up with water, made man in the image of the gods....

Woman was not yet made. ... The first woman was named Pandora. ... She opened the box incautiously, and the blessings all escaped, hope only excepted.

Jupiter, seeing this state of things, burned with anger....He set forth the frightful condition of things on the earth, ... his intention to destroy the whole of its inhabitants ...and resolved to drown it. Jupiter, not satisfied with his own waters, calls on his brother Neptune to aid him with his. ... Now all was sea, sea without shore. ... Parnassus alone, of all the mountains, overtopped the waves; and there Deucalion, and his wife Pyrrha, of the race of Prometheus, found refuge...”

These are very similar to the early passages of Genesis -- the creation of the earth from chaos, the cooling and shaping of earth. Making man in the image of gods. The woman,Pandora (Eve), coming after man. Her curiosity of the box (eating the forbidden fruit). The flood with a “Noah” surviving it.

It seems that Greek mythology predates the first writing of the Genesis. There is a large common ground between Mythology and the early part of the Bible. To be passed on, writings of those times had to be simple and metaphoric so that the ideas could easily be remembered through oral transmittal.

Don't take the writings of those times at face value, otherwise we should also consider Mythology as science.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is total common ground

The bible IS mythology

 

[Dr.Who]

85% of the royal society are atheists

Your argument above about inductive reasoning is childish

All you are saying is anything is possible and that commits you with equal validity to accepting elves and fairies and George Bush's brain

But in the tiny span of human life we have to deal with the probable

And the probability of people living to 800 years because god mended them is low enough to warrant the tag impossible

If you think that the miracle explanation trumps the it never happened explanation you have mental health issues

As the great Richard Dawkins says...if you hear the clippety clop of hooves behind you rule out the possibility of it being a horse before you start working on the hypothesis that is a unicorn

Which is a variant of occams razor

You should shave with it

I know that your mind will never even consider the possibilities and so I write for others.

Since when is the Royal Society representative of all scientists? They are a select few by definition and are most certainly not representative. Should I choose my own select few? I choose the group which goes by a name "Research Scientist' Christian Fellowship". Maybe I will just choose a random sampling of lab technicians - i bet lab technicians are more or less just like the rest of the population. Why were they not included in the sample of scientists which led you to beleive that most scientists are atheists? Simply because they did not join the Royal Society?

But it is refreshing to see that your argument against miracles and long life spans is now merely that it is improbable.

 

[Dr.Who]

We have some extant manus

According to wikipedia “Book of Genesis”, tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC”

Scholars generally think Hesiod, a Greek, wrote about Chaos, a nothingness, between 750 and 650 BC. His writings predate the estimated writings of the Genesis. Here are some excerpts from Bulfinch's Mythology.

“Before earth and sea and heaven were created, all things wore one aspect, ... Chaos- a confused and shapeless mass, .... Earth, sea, and air were all mixed up together; so the earth was not solid, the sea was not fluid, and the air was not transparent. God and Nature at last interposed, and put an end to this discord, separating earth from sea, and heaven from both.

Here some god... appointed rivers and bays their places, raised mountains, scooped out valleys, distributed woods, fountains, fertile fields. and stony plains.... Prometheus took some of this earth, and kneading it up with water, made man in the image of the gods....

Woman was not yet made. ... The first woman was named Pandora. ... She opened the box incautiously, and the blessings all escaped, hope only excepted.

Jupiter, seeing this state of things, burned with anger....He set forth the frightful condition of things on the earth, ... his intention to destroy the whole of its inhabitants ...and resolved to drown it. Jupiter, not satisfied with his own waters, calls on his brother Neptune to aid him with his. ... Now all was sea, sea without shore. ... Parnassus alone, of all the mountains, overtopped the waves; and there Deucalion, and his wife Pyrrha, of the race of Prometheus, found refuge...”

These are very similar to the early passages of Genesis -- the creation of the earth from chaos, the cooling and shaping of earth. Making man in the image of gods. The woman,Pandora (Eve), coming after man. Her curiosity of the box (eating the forbidden fruit). The flood with a “Noah” surviving it.

It seems that Greek mythology predates the first writing of the Genesis. There is a large common ground between Mythology and the early part of the Bible. To be passed on, writings of those times had to be simple and metaphoric so that the ideas could easily be remembered through oral transmittal.

Don't take the writings of those times at face value, otherwise we should also consider Mythology as science.

We have snips and pieces of copies of manuscripts from the Old Testament and the oldest dates to the 9th century BC. The copy must surely be newer than the original. And I personally dont think that looks at all like the OT. Guess thats a matter of opinion.

 

[Dr.Who]

According to wikipedia “Book of Genesis”, tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC”

Scholars generally think Hesiod, a Greek, wrote about Chaos, a nothingness, between 750 and 650 BC. His writings predate the estimated writings of the Genesis. Here are some excerpts from Bulfinch's Mythology.

“Before earth and sea and heaven were created, all things wore one aspect, ... Chaos- a confused and shapeless mass, .... Earth, sea, and air were all mixed up together; so the earth was not solid, the sea was not fluid, and the air was not transparent. God and Nature at last interposed, and put an end to this discord, separating earth from sea, and heaven from both.

Here some god... appointed rivers and bays their places, raised mountains, scooped out valleys, distributed woods, fountains, fertile fields. and stony plains.... Prometheus took some of this earth, and kneading it up with water, made man in the image of the gods....

Woman was not yet made. ... The first woman was named Pandora. ... She opened the box incautiously, and the blessings all escaped, hope only excepted.

Jupiter, seeing this state of things, burned with anger....He set forth the frightful condition of things on the earth, ... his intention to destroy the whole of its inhabitants ...and resolved to drown it. Jupiter, not satisfied with his own waters, calls on his brother Neptune to aid him with his. ... Now all was sea, sea without shore. ... Parnassus alone, of all the mountains, overtopped the waves; and there Deucalion, and his wife Pyrrha, of the race of Prometheus, found refuge...”

These are very similar to the early passages of Genesis -- the creation of the earth from chaos, the cooling and shaping of earth. Making man in the image of gods. The woman,Pandora (Eve), coming after man. Her curiosity of the box (eating the forbidden fruit). The flood with a “Noah” surviving it.

It seems that Greek mythology predates the first writing of the Genesis. There is a large common ground between Mythology and the early part of the Bible. To be passed on, writings of those times had to be simple and metaphoric so that the ideas could easily be remembered through oral transmittal.

Don't take the writings of those times at face value, otherwise we should also consider Mythology as science.

Oh and by the way, when I type words from your posts about the dating of genesis into the wikipedia internal search engine this is the result:

The page "Book of Genesis”, tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
For search help, please visit Help:Searching.

According to wikipedia those words do not exist in wikipedia. Someone is wrong, maybe its wiki?

 

[Lagboltz]

Oh and by the way, when I type words from your posts about the dating of genesis into the wikipedia internal search engine this is the result:

The page "Book of Genesis”, tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
For search help, please visit Help:Searching.

According to wikipedia those words do not exist in wikipedia. Someone is wrong, maybe its wiki?

You put in way too much. Go to wiki. In the search box type "Book of Genesis". Don't copy anything further than that. If that doesn't work for you, let me know.

 

[Lagboltz]

We have some extant manus
We have snips and pieces of copies of manuscripts from the Old Testament and the oldest dates to the 9th century BC. The copy must surely be newer than the original. And I personally dont think that looks at all like the OT. Guess thats a matter of opinion.

If you ignore the fact that there were many gods in the Greek mythology, it is very much like the OT. Formation of the earth and animals. And then an Adam look-alike made in the image of a god. An "Eve" type woman that comes after "Adam". Her curiosity that transformed them from their "Eden" to a new condition that lacked the same bliss. The world-wide flood. Survivors of the flood.

I can understand your personal denial of the resemblance because it would certainly go against your grain. But since I'm not ingrained in your religion, I am probably more objective in the comparison.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The royal society is the greatest collective of scientists on earth

Nearly all of them are atheists

And as countries get more educated they get less religious

Religion prospers off the back of ignorance because it is superstitious claptrap

There is a significant number of people in the US who believe the earth is less than ten thousand years old and that the bible is literally true

Which is what all Christians used to believe before time after time science came along and blew myth after myth out of the water

Funny how the bible missed the dinosaurs out

Dr who, do you believe that Noah got two of every dinosaur onto the ark along with the tigers and kangaroos and polar bears and cobras and limas and rattlesnakes and other millions of species that are not found in the middle east?

And as many animals feed on other animals how could two survive without their food?

After all, there would only be two of the relevant prey and if they got eaten that would be it for the species

Don't tell me, god did a miracle to keep them going as they floated around on this boat made of wood which modern naval architects agree could not be built from any wood and used as a boat

Let alone carry a payload heavier than any ship has ever carried

More bible science for you

 

[Dr.Who]

The royal society is the greatest collective of scientists on earth

Nearly all of them are atheists

And as countries get more educated they get less religious

Religion prospers off the back of ignorance because it is superstitious claptrap

There is a significant number of people in the US who believe the earth is less than ten thousand years old and that the bible is literally true

Which is what all Christians used to believe before time after time science came along and blew myth after myth out of the water

Funny how the bible missed the dinosaurs out

Dr who, do you believe that Noah got two of every dinosaur onto the ark along with the tigers and kangaroos and polar bears and cobras and limas and rattlesnakes and other millions of species that are not found in the middle east?

And as many animals feed on other animals how could two survive without their food?

After all, there would only be two of the relevant prey and if they got eaten that would be it for the species

Don't tell me, god did a miracle to keep them going as they floated around on this boat made of wood which modern naval architects agree could not be built from any wood and used as a boat

Let alone carry a payload heavier than any ship has ever carried

More bible science for you

Everything in there includes both truths and falsehoods and its all mixed up - much too hard to respond to.

Going back to the theme of the thread - the bible is a book that is primarily not a science book but which does occasionally include accurate depictions of scientific truth and is not incompatable with science but you cant see that because you twist what it says. Many many scientists are believers in God even if your select sample does not though we should question the legitimacy of the survey. There are of course ignorant people of all sorts including ignorant believers and ignorant scientists which is the source of the conflict between science and religion.

 

[Lagboltz]

Going back to the theme of the thread - the bible is a book that is primarily not a science book but which does occasionally include accurate depictions of scientific truth and is not incompatable with science but you cant see that because you twist what it says. Many many scientists are believers in God even if your select sample does not though we should question the legitimacy of the survey. There are of course ignorant people of all sorts including ignorant believers and ignorant scientists which is the source of the conflict between science and religion.

I would go along with what you say: As far as science sometimes the bible is right and sometimes is wrong. And science is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

I agree, the Bible was never meant to be a treatise on science. It's intent was largely to focus on Biblical history and morals. History, be it personal, or descriptive of geological events, is still history, not science.

One major difference is that when science is inadequate, it has historically tried to correct itself, sometimes radically. The Bible has to stay as is, and only has a limited ability to be reinterpreted or re-translated occasionally.

As far as many scientists believing in God, often Einstein is cited as a prime example. But Einstein's belief was in terms of a god in the philosophy of Spinoza, a sort of pantheism - not the usual christian idea.

 

[Dr.Who]

I would go along with what you say: As far as science sometimes the bible is right and sometimes is wrong. And science is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

I am sure that we agree to a large degree:

I would go along with what you say: As far as science sometimes the bible is right and sometimes an interpretation of it is wrong. And science is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

I agree, the Bible was never meant to be a treatise on science. It's intent was largely to focus on Biblical history and morals. History, be it personal, or descriptive of geological events, is still history, not science.

History is an account of an observation and observations is the first step of the scientific method.

One major difference is that when science is inadequate, it has historically tried to correct itself, sometimes radically. The Bible has to stay as is, and only has a limited ability to be reinterpreted or re-translated occasionally.

One major difference is that when science is inadequate, it has historically tried to correct itself, sometimes radically. Though it cannot alter the observations without forcing us to question reality. Only the interpretation of those observations can change. The Bible in its original form as an observation of reality has to stay as is, and only has a limited ability to be reinterpreted or re-translated occasionally.

As far as many scientists believing in God, often Einstein is cited as a prime example. But Einstein's belief was in terms of a god in the philosophy of Spinoza, a sort of pantheism - not the usual christian idea.

As far as many scientists believing in God, often Einstein is cited as a prime example. But Einstein's belief was in terms of a god in the philosophy of Spinoza, a sort of pantheism - not the usual christian idea. And while he was not a Christian he was a believer in the supernatural as a direct result of his scientific observations. Other scientists however have other interpretations and many of them are Christians. Scientist are people and are prone to the same biases as any one else. No doubt some of them are biased when they accept religious ideas and some of them are biased when they reject religious ideas.[/quote]

 

[Lagboltz]

I am sure that we agree to a large degree:

I would go along with what you say: As far as science sometimes the bible is right and sometimes an interpretation of it is wrong. And science is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

History is an account of an observation and observations is the first step of the scientific method.

One major difference is that when science is inadequate, it has historically tried to correct itself, sometimes radically. Though it cannot alter the observations without forcing us to question reality. Only the interpretation of those observations can change. The Bible in its original form as an observation of reality has to stay as is, and only has a limited ability to be reinterpreted or re-translated occasionally.

As far as many scientists believing in God, often Einstein is cited as a prime example. But Einstein's belief was in terms of a god in the philosophy of Spinoza, a sort of pantheism - not the usual christian idea. And while he was not a Christian he was a believer in the supernatural as a direct result of his scientific observations. Other scientists however have other interpretations and many of them are Christians. Scientist are people and are prone to the same biases as any one else. No doubt some of them are biased when they accept religious ideas and some of them are biased when they reject religious ideas.

Well, you do point out some major disagreements. You seem to believe that the bible is never wrong, just the interpretation. One simple example in Genesis says that the earth appeared before the sun. That is flat out wrong according to any theory of the formation of the solar system. You mention the bible as an observation of reality. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but many Christians consider much of it as metaphor.

Finally, you say that Einstein was a believer in the supernatural. He was spiritual, but did not believe in the supernatural. He said, “If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” Google that phrase if you want to see the context.