Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Base12

Bible vs. Science: Shocking New Discoveries!

393 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Clockwork_Spirit
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

You take his word now? 

I doubt you have read a single book he wrote, order is the illusion we have with from our perspective in time, nothing more. 

He did not believe in a  afterlife, a creator or or religion at all, which makes you a hypocrite quoting him I would think seeming as he has the very opposite view of that which you continually push.

So I do feel you should consider his work more carefully seeing as you are quoting him

Are you taking his word here? 

He puts a creator and the afterlife in the same bucket as the face on mars. In short, utter nonsense. 

 

sagan.jpg

"If some good evidence for life after death were announced, I'd be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real scientific data, not mere anecdote. As with the face on Mars and alien abductions, better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy. And in the final tolling it often turns out that the facts are more comforting than the fantasy."

 

 

 

I absolutely loved the old Cosmos series. I also found Demon Hunted World an illuminating read. There is no doubt that Carl Sagan is a pioneer. But that doesn't mean I agree with all of his personal views. You see, I don't have to. I can distinguish between his scientific opinions from his philosophical positions.

BTW, I had no clue there was an ''atheist meme base'' somewhere on the internet.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
psyche101
8 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

I absolutely loved the old Cosmos series. I also found Demon Hunted World an illuminating read. There is no doubt that Carl Sagan is a pioneer. But that doesn't mean I agree with all of his personal views. You see, I don't have to. I can distinguish between his scientific opinions from his philosophical positions.

I seriously question that you can, especially so considering your posting of his quote 

8 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

BTW, I had no clue there was an ''atheist meme base'' somewhere on the internet.

Me either but there's one for pretty much everything these days 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If you has read the links I left to support my position, watched the videos like I did yours and had an understanding of physics you would find that to be a resounding yes. 

There are no problems with Darwininian evolutionary theory  that's a false start to begin with. 

See, you often make silly little comments like this with nothing to support them. That says a lot more than you apparently realise. 

Its not a threat  its a menace. It cannot be a threat, the correct answer is the one that best fits the data and that illustrates a natural universe simple as that. I've not seen you propose a single argument from yourself, you post links and dust jackets and think that is a reply. It's not. It's hand waving. I went so far as to plead to you to begin with in order to hear what you think all your heroes are talking about, but you never put forward your own thoughts. I dismiss the ID advocates you keep Googling as I have already seen their arguments overturned by the leaders in the field like Sean Carroll and Lawrence Krauss, and they have the information I present to soundly refute the arguments you have pointed at with links. They don't have to prove themselves  they have already done that, they only need present the evidence they have uncovered to the underhanded proponents who accomplish no results, only to further distrust in real world accomplishments with their ridiculous word salads. 

Its the definition

I cannot think of one time when you have posted one and offered a synopsis of what is between those covers or offered how it rebuts the points put forward. That's a very poor appeal to authority on your part and only indicates that you have not a clue what is in them but post them for the controversial titles. 

Your actions are more telling than you seem to realise. 

No  I have no time for time wasters and people who challenge real information only to achieve their own agenda if undermining science to appease their arrogant nature. As I say,  you don't put forward your thoughts, you just appeal to authority and take it badly when it is pointed out that their arguments are not only flawed  but engineered to support a personal agenda. Science has no agenda, but is basically a report of what we have observed. I could change my mind if decent evidence was to suddenly spring forth, you do not and have not when such evidence has been handed to you. Your agenda seems to be to undermine science so you can pretend some great authority has taken special notice of you, and that is more than obvious in the way you take offense and get upset when it's pointed out to you that you are just another insignificant speck in the universe  which only has only the meaning you make for yourself. Your motives and agenda are much more clear than you realise, or would like them to be. I think you've got personal issues that you need to tend to before you can so much as glance at the subject with any objectivity whatsoever. Your just another Ken Ham in different clothes just like ID is creationism wrapped in different paper. The little gang that you belong to are all agenda driven fearing greatly that science has ended the superstition you all have wasted so much of your life on so you all try to protect your investments. And that some like to think if themselves as authorities in superstition and get greatly offended at having that authority ripped away and even made fun of. If any of you invested the time you do into learning instead of trying to undermine science for personal reasons (how is that even supposed to get respected or be respectful??)  you would not only know exactly where I am coming form, but you would understand why that information represents the best fit to data revealing the most likely answers. 

Come on Man!   Don't be shy...tell us how you really feel...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

The argument of the last few pages seems to be one that is old and tired, but that is a common theistic argument: anything is possible. It amazes me that so many people don't seem to understand that random ideas about creation with no basis in fact are not equal to scientific theories that have evidence to support them. Not all ideas are created equal. Intelligent design is a philosophical position at best, but it has nothing to do with science nor should it be considered to be on even playing field with any scientific theory. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
6 minutes ago, Podo said:

The argument of the last few pages seems to be one that is old and tired, but that is a common theistic argument: anything is possible. It amazes me that so many people don't seem to understand that random ideas about creation with no basis in fact are not equal to scientific theories that have evidence to support them. Not all ideas are created equal. Intelligent design is a philosophical position at best, but it has nothing to do with science nor should it be considered to be on even playing field with any scientific theory. 

 

Well said Podo. But for those of us who believe in God, have faith in him and value the personal spiritual experiences that result because of it, end up knowing things that science cannot prove, which it's not supposed to do in the first place.

For us, faith and belief garners an understanding which surpasses alone the comprehension of life that science provides by itself.

Two eyes are better than one.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
18 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Well said Podo. But for those of us who believe in God, have faith in him and value the personal spiritual experiences that result because of it, end up knowing things that science cannot prove, which it's not supposed to do in the first place.

For us, faith and belief garners an understanding which surpasses alone the comprehension of life that science provides by itself.

Two eyes are better than one.

 

 

Hi Will 

I know a blind man that might make a decent argument against that.:lol:

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 11/23/2017 at 11:58 AM, Illyrius said:

I believe it is very prominent in scientific circles. As you say they can't examine God, but they sure have a lot of fun denying that which they can't examine. And the gullible masses see in them Paragons of Knowledge and Objectivity. What a joke.

This doesn't happen. Where did you get this wacky idea?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 11/23/2017 at 0:02 PM, Illyrius said:

Signed.

But the problem is that spirituality is not a small issue, and they transgress it very cheerfully from the standpoint of Authority.

 

The shadow side of “science as a modern-day wisdom tradition” is that it can, and often does take on the qualities of a religion, with all of its taboos and heresies that violate the open-minded spirit of the scientific method. The tenets of science, which can easily resemble a disguised form of religious dogma, call for its adherents’ intellectual and emotional allegiance in a way that borders on the irrational. People who have been indoctrinated into the dictates of this scientific creed, as if hypnotized or under a spell, can find it difficult or even impossible to imagine that the world can be anything other than the way they have been taught that it is, as if no other way of thinking or knowing about things has ever occurred to them.

This is false. The site is misleading  you. BTW, when you copy material from a site without providing a link you are stealing from that site.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Well said Podo. But for those of us who believe in God, have faith in him and value the personal spiritual experiences that result because of it, end up knowing things that science cannot prove, which it's not supposed to do in the first place.

For us, faith and belief garners an understanding which surpasses alone the comprehension of life that science provides by itself.

Two eyes are better than one.

Believe whatever crazy crap you want, it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when theists take their beliefs and try to compare them to well-attested scientific theories or principles. Keep your mythology away from my science, basically. The two can coexist, as long as they don't cross streams.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

This is false. The site is misleading  you. BTW, when you copy material from a site without providing a link you are stealing from that site.

Why do you say it is false? Just stating it is false or you have something to argument this falsity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 2/27/2018 at 10:38 AM, Will Due said:

 

Can you explain why some otherwise intelligent people believe there isn't intelligent design in the human hand?

Here's an example of intelligent design:

** snipped meaningless image **

This is not evidence of intelligent design unless you mean people are intelligent. It is simply a copy of a human hand powered by means other than what a human hand uses.

In the argument for intelligent design it is meaningless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 11/19/2017 at 2:13 PM, Illyrius said:

That is nice to know. Does it also require an evidence for negating something?

To (para) paraphrase Carl Sagan:  At least out to 10,000,000,000 light years, we have found no evidence for non-existance of heaven.

Because, you see, if it requiers an evidence for existance, and does not require the evidence for non-existance - in that case it is essentially a pretty foolish, false doctrine.

In science the worst possible thing is to make a mistake.  If one assumes that something exists, then that assumption might be wrong.  In order to avoid a mistake, we must wait until evidence of a thing's existence is presented (or go out and find it ourselves).

That does not work in reverse because one cannot prove a negative without checking EVERY alternative.  In an infinite (or at least undefined) universe that is impossible.  If we leave one spot unchecked, then that spot might be hiding god, or heaven, or the great flying spaghetti monster.  Seeing as that option is closed to us, we must await the presentation of evidence that the divine is real.  In the meantime, we proceed as if it isn't.

That functionally creates a default position of "nothing exists."  No god, no earth, not even myself.  How do I know you exist?  How do I know this computer exists?

How do I know I exist?  That's easy.  If I do not exist, I cannot ask whether I exist and the question would be meaningless.  If I can ask whether I exist, then I exist.  We then go on to establish that things we can see, touch, hear etc. exist.  And thus establish that there is something out there beyond ourselves.

The term "doctrine" is an assumption made to make sense of a vast pile of data.  The Doctrine of Uniformity underlies cosmology, evolution and geology.  There is no way to prove that a huge amount of time has passed, so we just assume it.  Then this universe makes sense.  Once we have made this asumption, then the Theory of Plate Techtonics, Theory of Evolution and Theory of an Expanding Universe all fall into place.

In a sense, the assumption that god exists would be a doctrine.  So would the assumption that god doesn't exist.  But if we are being objective, neither of those options is available.  So we proceed with whichever option we choose and ask if there is something that REQUIRES our choice to be right.

Doug

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

"The Bible Vs. Science" is a false argument.  Science could be used as a tool to study the Bible and learn things about the times and people who lived it, or one could uncritically read the Bible as one would read Robin Hood or Moby Dick.  The either/or argument comes from two different perspectives and the issue cannot be resolved without first specifying which perspective is to take precedence.  As this doesn't seem to be in any danger of happening, I suggest we learn what we can by applying science (reason).

One example:  Moses and the Exodus.  If Moses was a real person, then somewhere on Manetho's list of Pharoahs is a man who talked to Moses.  Is there a way to figure out who that might have been?  Perhaps.  Josephus in "Against Apion" describes Apion's "fake Pharaoh," the one Apion thought was the Pharaoh of the Exodus (Josephus disagreed.), as being the son of Ramses, of having a son named Ramses, but not having that name, himself.  Is there such a Pharaoh?  Turns out there is.  Ramses I had a son named Seti who became Seti I.  Seti's son Ramses became Ramses II.  So the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Seti I.  There were only six Pharaohs named Ramses.  And only one had a son not named Ramses who succeeded to the throne.

Second example:  the Bible specifies the year 1446 BC as the year of the Exodus (It's an estimate based on the Exodus having been 480 years before the building of the Temple and the Temple having been built about 966 BC.).  So what was happening about then?  Hatshepsut's lover was also her architect, a man named Senemet.  His best friend was a man named Djehuti.  Hatshepsut died about that time (abscessed tooth) after co-ruling with Thutmose III.  Thutmose took the throne, replacing Hatshepsut's people with his own - dynastic politics.  Djehuti accompanlied Harshepsut's body to al Bahari.  At al Bahari one of Thutmose' assassins attacked Djehuti, but failed to make the kill.  Djehuti killed him and "buried his body in the sand."  Thutmose' court called Djehuti to appear and explain himself (There is actually a limestone flake now held by the American Museum that orders this.).  As this would have been suicide, Djehuti fled into the desert where he had a battle with some evil men.  Sound familiar?  There's a lot more evidence that Djehuti was Moses, including his exile and return to Egypt just in time to lead an expedition to Sinai.  An expedition that came to grief at the Red Sea.

Djehuti/Moses had an adventure that sounds an awful lot like Alababa and the Forty Thieves.  Moses might be remembered in the Thousand and One Tales of the Arabian Nights.

But all this presents a problem:  Djehuti lived in the mid-fifteenth century BC.  Seti lived in the early thirteenth century.  They can't both be Moses.

 

There are at least three other candidates for the job of "Moses."  So what is the most-likely explanation?  Here we leave science and have to speculate:  "Moses" is an amalgamation, a dimly-remembered legendary hero, half history and half make-believe.  He makes a great national hero.

Doug

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
13 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Why do you say it is false? Just stating it is false or you have something to argument this falsity?

You did no more than pick put a site and now you want to assume it is true unless proved otherwise. The burden is on you to support that site. It is a requirement to provide a link to the site from which you copy information.

Here  is the false statement: science takes on the qualities of a religion. That is patently false. Science as explained in many places including this thread will change. Religion does not change. Here is an example. There are two different stories of creation n Genesis. Neither story matches the order of creation as seen in the geological record. Is the bible corrected? No. Is science able to adjust? Yes.

The site you linked to is false. If you  want to support the fiction from the site go ahead. Until then consider it is wrong.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Posted (edited)
On 02/03/2018 at 10:45 PM, joc said:

Come on Man!   Don't be shy...tell us how you really feel...

LOL 

 

aaaaaalll-righty-then-alrighty-meme.jpg

:):)

 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 03/03/2018 at 4:03 AM, Illyrius said:

Why do you say it is false? Just stating it is false or you have something to argument this falsity?

Even after all these posts you still don't understand peer review??????? 

You could save yourself a bucket load of time and typing by just repeating how you don't understand science. 

It refutes your claims itself. 

You should cross your legs, your agenda is showing again. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 3/2/2018 at 1:03 PM, Illyrius said:

Why do you say it is false? Just stating it is false or you have something to argument this falsity?

You posting from a site does not make it correct.

The site claims that science takes on the qualities of a religion. You don't really believe that stupidity do you?

You posted that rubbish. Go ahead and defend it if you want to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 10:29 PM, Base12 said:

Note that this works only in the KJV.

And how does it match in the original Hebrew language?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.