Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit newsguru's column >>

NEWSGURU

Home Page
Newsguru - Irresistible News Headlines and Current Events
Articles Posted: 23  Links Seeded: 5355
Member Since: 5/2006  Last Seen: 5/15/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

15 Scientific Facts in the Bible

Seeded on Fri Jun 9, 2006 12:08 PM EDT
Read ArticleArticle Source: Living Waters
science, us, united-states, odd, faith, christianity, god, evolution, jesus, earth, christians, spirituality, christ, creation, darwin, belief, evangelical, briefs, big-bang, antichrist, dinosaur, episcopal-church, evangelical-christians, presbyterian-church, united-methodist-church, dave-zirin, faith-based-organisation
Seeded by newsguru
Advertise | AdChoices

Scientific Facts in the Bible

1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth's free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).

4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote).

5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn't discover this until 1864 when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

6. Job 38:19 asks, "Where is the way where light dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000 miles per second.

7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "When the morning stars sang together..."

See article.........

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

  • newsguru's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (222)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
praetor605

Many of these facts are a bit of a stretch when it comes to reading the scripture. It reminds me of using Nostradamus to show how WW2 was predicted. As for the others, well some were ideas put forward by the Greeks (atoms) and others are easily explainable by human observations. For example, I am sure that babies were circumcised at every day before 8 days, but that they usually died. Hence, trial and error lead to the belief that one had to wait 8 days until circumcision.

  • 29 votes
Reply#1 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 1:26 PM EDT
ComSen

For example, I am sure that babies were circumcised at every day before 8 days, but that they usually died. Hence, trial and error lead to the belief that one had to wait 8 days until circumcision.

And the evidence for this is what?

  • 3 votes
#1.1 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 10:25 PM EDT
praetor605

Really? You want evidence for this? Will common sense not allow my hypothesis to stand on its own? I am not going to google the history of circumcision, but if you wish to then be my guest. I am saying that it likely that the 8 day rule resulted from a trial and error system that evolved over years and years. Such a method has been used by man for centuries, such as cultivating certain plants for crops/medicine or using natural materials around them to build. Such a method would easily account for such a "rule" being developed and I find that much more likely than the knowledge being handed down by divine mandate. You do not have to know about the blood clotting cascade to watch bleeding stop in a wound (or not stop).

  • 10 votes
#1.2 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 11:25 PM EDT
Adam Kemp

Much like many cultures will not allow their babies to crawl on the ground, because they know that babies who do often get sick and die. They don't know that the explanation is germs, they just know that babies who crawl on the ground die more often.

  • 6 votes
#1.3 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 11:52 PM EDT
Reply
Brian Ford

This could also have been titled: 15 coincidences which relate to science from the bible.

Quite honestly, this is nothing more than (yet another) misguided attempt to try and equate science with faith, when they are two completely separate disciplines.

People who need to rationalize their faith through real-world science don't seem to have much faith, in my opinion. Revel in the fact that you believe in something greater than science and that is essentially unknowable (because that's the beauty of faith) but don't try and make it something that it isn't.

I rolled my eyes on each and every one of the examples.

  • 44 votes
Reply#2 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 1:34 PM EDT
Jason Coleman

As a practicing Christian, can I just say: No. 6? Really? What on earth does that have to do with anything? Further, is it worth dwelling on stretched meanings of a single word when the book this is referring to wasn't even written in English? I mean does the Hebrew world for "way" make that any more a logical connection, because that's very flimsy.

Brian's right, science and religion are two separate aspects of mankind. The bible doesn't have be both a guide to morality and a physics textbook.

  • 22 votes
#2.1 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 2:30 PM EDT
newsguru

let me first say that although i posted the list, i didn't write it and don't necessary get the logic of a few of these myself... and jason i laughed at #6 as well... however, i will not jump on praetor605's bandwagon of thought, however clever it may be... and dismiss the fact that the Bible, "the living word" of God, divinely inspired by the God who we Christians claim created "Everything", is completely void of science... that would be ridiculous... at for a believing Christian...

i digress, and say that the list was interesting to me only b/c u rarely see someone who's taken the time to compile such a list... but if u don't believe in God or creation, I assure you that you'll find a reason to discount each and everyone item in the list...

  • 5 votes
#2.2 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 2:59 PM EDT
Jason Coleman

As someone who seeds items that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with, I wasn't assuming you had seeded this to push an agenda. Sorry if I came across otherwise.

Well, think of it this way, I don't look towards the Bible to learn grammar or mathematics, either. The important lessons there are of a different nature, all together.

  • 10 votes
#2.3 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 3:11 PM EDT
newsguru

agree 100%.

  • 2 votes
#2.4 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 3:16 PM EDT
_Von_

Quite honestly, this is nothing more than (yet another) misguided attempt to try and equate science with faith, when they are two completely separate disciplines.

I'm afraid you've got it wrong, Brian Ford. This is merely more proof that the Bible was written by Aliens that are far more advanced than our society.

[/joke]

  • 14 votes
#2.5 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 4:42 PM EDT
Rhine Cyrus

That explains why the Bible doesn't mention aliens. Those dudes are quite smart.

  • 1 vote
#2.6 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:21 PM EDT
Brad Leclerc

There may not be aliens in the bible, but there is a LOT of alien technology, healing, food replication, anti-gravity person flight...all sorts!

  • 3 votes
#2.7 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 10:53 PM EDT
ericfive

That explains why the Bible doesn't mention aliens

What about Ezekiel's wheels?

  • 1 vote
#2.8 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:18 AM EDT
Reginald Freeman

What about Ezekiel's wheels?

And what about 2 Kings 2:11 - "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

Clerarly one of the first recorded alien abductions! ;)

  • 4 votes
#2.9 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:34 PM EDT
Reply
Ryan1

Exodus 21:20-21
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Science has shown slaves that are beaten in non-vital areas will get up after a day or two. Go figure...

  • 16 votes
Reply#3 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 2:56 PM EDT
newsguru

ryan, no disrespect intended... but what the point you were making?

  • 1 vote
#3.1 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 3:17 PM EDT
Rhine Cyrus

I think he's trying to say that the fact that slavery was condoned in the USA is not the fault of those who did it. They were just following the Bible.

  • 5 votes
#3.2 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:22 PM EDT
Cary Quinn

The point he is making is that a scientific statement requires a basis in both facts and a logical series of events for it to be scientifically valid.

The problem with the points made above is that the bible provides no scientific basis of explanation under which to test if the "facts" it gives are true, whether they agree with modern ideas or not.
Without applying such a basis, any statement taken from the bible
can be offered as "fact". But if you do apply that basis, then you have to evaluate each statement to determine if they are truly scientific.

  • 3 votes
#3.3 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 7:11 PM EDT
Captain Nemo

Think of how easily God could have made his existence plausible to modern man if he wanted to, even if he didn't care to appear in all his god-power to subdue the world unto himself.

The Bible could have been written as an instruction manual, providing highly technical knowledge such as the Periodical Table of the Elements, the atomic structure, the structure of DNA, or any other scientific data that would be kept hermetically sealed as a secret until the day science discovered the meaning of it and had to admit that it was virtually impossible for the prophets to have envisioned these things without some sort of divine inspiration.

Still, I have to say that just as Greek mythology offers surprising insights into aspects of human psychology, the Bible is an impressive catalogue of the progressive findings of a rigorous study of ethics throughout millennia, and I think it is why its influence is so difficult to shake off. Carl Sagan has one of his characters say, in Contact:

"Is there a scientific principle that prevent humans from doing what is evil?" [Quoted from memory]

  • 6 votes
#3.4 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 8:52 PM EDT
Cary Quinn

The problem is the ideal of keeping that information hidden is a denial of science in itself. Why would the bible hide scientific data when it goes out of the way to provide simple explanations for the understanding of the social, economic and ethical thinking of its time?

The process of science is not to suddenly understand the meaning of some great secret that has been sealed away. It is to gradually understand the form and function of the obvious and mundane reality that we see everyday.

The problem is that while we may point to Greek mythology for ideas on human patterns of thought and behavior, we turn instead to the traditions of Greek Philosophy as an basis for scientific exploration and discovery.

  • 2 votes
#3.5 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 9:46 PM EDT
Average Joe

The process of science is not to suddenly understand the meaning of some great secret that has been sealed away. It is to gradually understand the form and function of the obvious and mundane reality that we see everyday.

I disagree with that completely. If science were only concerned with the obvious and mundane, no inventor would ever lay claim to a new idea. The huge mysteries of the World, I think, are what have always fueled the entire concept of scientific inquiry.

That's not to say that science doesn't constantly shed a new light of understanding on all of those obvious and mundane things for us...

  • 2 votes
#3.6 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 10:37 PM EDT
Cary Quinn

But the huge mysteries cannot possibly be explained without putting them in context with our understanding of the mundane.

I did not say that science was only concerned with the obvious...
It is thru concern with a better understanding of the obvious that the more extraordinary phenomena are revealed as such.

It is very difficult to name a new idea that is not related to or inspired by past research and discovery in some lesser field of study. And those great ideas can only stand up to the rigors of scientific review by having a firm foundation in accepted (and even mundane) concepts as their foundation.

For example: The theories and observations into Evolution existed long before Charles Darwin came along to do his own research into the field,
but it was because he was familiar with the supposed "normal" behaviour of the plant and animals species he saw in the Galapagos Islands that he was able to put his own observations, of the extraordinary changes they had undergone from developing in such an isolated environment, in with existing ideas of plant and animal husbandry to develop his Origin of Species.

The AC current that powers our computers got part of the start in its scientific journey as an exploration in ways to store static electricity as parlor tricks.

And the claims made in the article above had a basis in scientific observation thousands of years before statements to their effect appears in biblical text.

  • 2 votes
#3.7 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 11:40 PM EDT
Reply
Shadybird Johnson

These are not scientific facts. They're phrases that can be used to describe almost anything.

  • 14 votes
Reply#4 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 3:30 PM EDT
cescott

More "Fortune Cookie" than actual description of fact.

Also, the assumptions of this article include, but are not limited to, the following: There were no cultures or lands beyond those described in the Bible (no China, no Egypt, no India, ect.); That the Church had NOT maintained the flat-earth, earth-centered dogma for centuries; That before the Bible, no knowledge was acquired or transmitted either among generations or cultures.

There are more "facts" in The Da Vinci Code than in these citations.

  • 10 votes
#4.1 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 4:06 PM EDT
Reply
FDBryant3

I think the biggest problem here is that they are trying to sell something.

To be honest I have no problem with idea that there are scientific facts in the Bible. People have a tendancy to write the Bible off as a religious text. They do not take into account that it is also historical text. So, the idea that people from biblical times have recorded observations or ideas that have later been proven by modern science should not be news to any one.

I suppose you can argue whether God had anything to do with these observations and ideas or if they are just there because of some perceptive people. Just because they are in the Bible though doesn't prove anything really.

By the way, I do this a Christian who believes in both science (how thing happen) and God (why things happen).

  • 4 votes
Reply#5 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 3:39 PM EDT
newsguru

good point, FD, i can agree there...

any proof is irrevelant... "without faith, it is impossible to please God"

i know what the basics tenets of evolution are... i went through plenty of years of basic, secondary, graduate level, etc. etc...

like u FD i do believe in science and God... however, science has become a religion itself.... i use my own good judgment and faith to believe of science what sounds reasonable to me...

just as a lot of christians and so-called christians can't agree on many subjects... science is the same...

one year they tell eggs are good for you b/c of the protein, etc., we rush out and eat more eggs...

then the next year they say, well they're very bad for you b/c of the high cholesterol, we stop eating eggs...

then the next year they say well they don't have as much effect on cholesterol as they thought... what do you do.... i take from science what's it worth, but it is a religion that i'll never worship....

  • 2 votes
#5.1 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 3:52 PM EDT
simonesq

i use my own good judgment and faith to believe of science what sounds reasonable to me...

This position is common, but very misguided. Modern science is hardly ever "reasonable" unless you study it in depth. Nobody in his right mind would believe in quantum mechanics without compelling experimental data, for example.

So, unless you're going to commit to a rigorous science education, you're much better off listening to the experts.

  • 7 votes
#5.2 - Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:01 PM EDT
Reply
newsguru

I'm curious to know what proof would evolutionist, as a whole, need to see that would convince them to believe that God created the earth and everything in it?

Just name it....

  • 1 vote
#6 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 3:40 PM EDT
Jason Coleman

I don't think it's provable. There-in lies my faith.

  • 2 votes
#6.1 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 3:44 PM EDT
Brian Ford

I, in turn, am curious to know what proof creationist, as a whole, need to see that would convince them to believe that everything in existence is a result of natural causes without needing a "God" to organize the event?

Just name it.

I ask that question rhetorically, to illustrate why it's silly to ask the question you asked. Science and religion are not related fields, and each seeks an answer to a different question.

I just don't happen to need the answers that are provided by religion. On the flip side, I'll give you 1000 dollars if you can convince me that you don't need the answers that have been provided to us by Science.

  • 8 votes
#6.2 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 3:51 PM EDT
FDBryant3

I just don't happen to need the answers that are provided by religion.

You will if they are right about what happens after death :-D

By the way - I don't need the answers provided to me by science. Pretty much all I need are air, food, water, a place to squat, and rest. All of which I can get without science. So, shall I send you my PayPal account for the $1000? :-D

  • 2 votes
#6.3 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 3:59 PM EDT
Tim Baxter

Without science you would be unlikely to have clean water or any type of even semi-modern habitation. Nor would you be likely to think much of your food or sleeping arrangements.

But if you want to sleep on a bed of straw in cave somewhere and forage for berries, well... it can be done.

  • 4 votes
#6.4 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 4:03 PM EDT
Brian Ford

I'm not convinced.

  • 3 votes
#6.5 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 4:04 PM EDT
Vincent Grayson

In order to ever receive proof that God created the Earth, I'd first need proof of God.

There's plenty of ways he/she/it could pull it off, the simplest of which being operating outside of known natural laws and then making it clear he/she/it was responsible.

Hell, even some old testament-style pillars of fire and burning bushes that talk would be better than anything I've ever seen.

  • 6 votes
#6.6 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 4:07 PM EDT
MrESquid

many so called evolutionists believe (in their personal lives) that god did create the world (as i, and many of my peers do). they just disagree with creationism taken literally. evolutionary theory is supported by a wealth of hard evidence, and theres hardly anyone who doesnt believe that natural selection causes some change in species over time. evolutionists believe that evolution is the "how" of creation and will admit that they cannot speak scientifically about the "why" because it is outside the scope of scientific inquiry. if, leaving science behind, they then want to pose possible answers to why creation happened, many end up admitting that they think it was whatever god or gods that they believe in.

i really dont like people assuming that anyone who doesnt turn a blind eye on scientific evidence and carefully formed theory must necessarily be trying to disprove what some see as god's integral role in creation. there is no evidence for spontaneous creation of species out of nothing, and no reason to think that we were literally made from clay, though both these things may be true. science can only make theory based on evidence, and all the availabe evidence points to evolution as the process by whcih species are created. teaching fact is not a direct attack on religion, it is the lifeblood of science.

to answer your question, faith in creation by god is faith, and not something that can be based on the kind of evidence that would qualify as scientific evidence. if you asked that question hoping to find out the one argument it would take to convince biologists that evolution is untrue, know now that it will never, ever happen, because the evidence available to us speaks overwhelmingly of variation and natural selection, in short, evolution.
the only proof needed to convince someone of creation is faith, and that is the only proof available. (convenient, isnt it)

  • 5 votes
#6.7 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 4:08 PM EDT
Rhine Cyrus

Brian Ford in 6.3

I'll give you 1000 dollars if you can convince me that you don't need the answers that have been provided to us by Science.

Putting myself into the shoes of of a conservative church-going Republican, here are a few reasons that I don't need the answers provided by science:
1- I didn't need to know that global warming is for real. It is such a partisan issue that is dividing the whole country. Now, if we can't unite the country, how are we going to unite the world? No country peace, no world peace.
2- I didn't need to know that stem cell research is good for humanity. It is such a partisan issue again. Imagine if we didn't have stem cell research, we would all be living life peacefully instead of fighting over it.

That'll be $2000. Ok, since day after tomorrow is church day, I'll give you a "happy mood" discount. Make it $1899. Please send it to Newsvine on my behalf. Thanks.

  • 2 votes
#6.8 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:33 PM EDT
Brian Ford

I never said that you could cherry pick "some" science and claim not to need it.

I'm not convinced.

;)

  • 4 votes
#6.9 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:42 PM EDT
Dom Pody

The Greeks and Romans and Mesopotamians created their gods to prove why we have night and day, why crops grow, and the like. Later, the modern religions decided that only one god did all the unexplainable things.

However, as time has gone on, we have gotten proof of how all the "unexplainable" things have happened- none of which was the work of these gods. Therefore, I am not so naive to say "because science can't explain it now, God must've done it!!!", because I know sometime in the future humanity will look back and think, "man those people thought a god created the Earth? Please."

  • 3 votes
#6.10 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 6:11 PM EDT
murat

I'm curious to know what proof would evolutionist, as a whole, need to see that would convince them to believe that God created the earth and everything in it?

How about if He did it again, with observers this time? Or maybe it would be enough if He could do something that isn't scientifically possible (violate the laws of thermodynamics or something).

  • 2 votes
#6.11 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:57 AM EDT
newsguru

first let's suppose u did believe in an almighty creator... just imagine for a sec...

let's propose that this king of the universe, creator of galaxies did feel some need to succumb to our prodding and doubting his ability or existence...

and decided i'm gonna show up, so they'll believe... he could raise the dead to life, heal the sick, walk on water, etc... the people would write it down, they'd call him holy, they'd worship him, they'd watch him ascend back to heaven... then over the next couple thousand years they'd doubt he ever came, doubt he ever existed, and claim their own existence and intelligence was some accident of nature... guess what he did all that.

the only problem with his showing up is that he'd be forced to do this again and again for every generation that did not actually see it with their own eyes...b/c they'd wouldn't believe it anyway...

  • 2 votes
#6.12 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:05 AM EDT
Jason Coleman

Well, it's not as though everyone at the time was completely convinced anyway. As a matter of fact, His following has only grown since, so I don't really know what being so cynical about that gains you. Lastly, I don't recall Jesus or any other representative of God that is recorded in the Bible as saying that science was not to be trusted or believed.

You should really consider that science is not a competitor to religion. The people who have chosen to not believe in any sort of high being have done so as a personal decision and not because science itself told them so. I'd suspect that even Richard Dawkins would have to admit that at some level (although I've not read everything he's ever written by a long shot).

  • 3 votes
#6.13 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:14 AM EDT
Vincent Grayson

Given that this theoretically almight being knows and sees all, you'd think he would have thought ahead, and waited until the world was virtually united to show himself and his power, instead of doing it in a time when most things were passed orally.

People today doubt @!$%# that was written down *yesterday*, much less 2000 years ago. You'd think he would try to account for that.

  • 2 votes
#6.14 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:29 PM EDT
murat

the only problem with his showing up is that he'd be forced to do this again and again for every generation that did not actually see it with their own eyes...b/c they'd wouldn't believe it anyway...

You don't think He could just, you know, plant certainty of His own existence in everyone's head?

  • 2 votes
#6.15 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:11 PM EDT
ericfive

You don't think He could just, you know, plant certainty of His own existence in everyone's head?

If you really want to get into that discussion...

because that would eliminate free will.

  • 1 vote
#6.16 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:39 PM EDT
murat

because that would eliminate free will

Sigh. Ok back to the original objection then:

the only problem with his showing up is that he'd be forced to do this again and again for every generation that did not actually see it with their own eyes...b/c they'd wouldn't believe it anyway...

Seems like compared to creating the universe and everything, coming back every generation to do amazing stuff would be hardly any bother at all...

  • 3 votes
#6.17 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:06 PM EDT
Adam Kemp

In what way would it eliminate free will? I know with 100% certainty that my mother exists, and yet I still have free will to love or not love her. How is God different?

  • 3 votes
#6.18 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:06 PM EDT
ericfive

The choice is more fundamental than that of whether to love: it is whether to believe.

To get a little more detailed, I am speaking within the Judeo-Christian philosophical context. A successful christian life and god-relationship requires choosing to believe and acting on faith, which is of course eliminated with hard-wired (or even any) incontrovertible proof.

  • 1 vote
#6.19 - Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:23 AM EDT
ericfive

I know with 100% certainty that my mother exists

Can you really prove this?

  • 2 votes
#6.20 - Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:26 AM EDT
Adam Kemp

Your argument has changed. Instead of being about free will, now it's about faith versus reason. That's entirely different, and it's a purely doctrinal argument, not a logical one. There is absolutely no conflict between knowing that someone (or something) exists and having the free will to love or obey that person (or thing/deity/whatever).

So now you seem to be arguing that God wants people to believe in something without solid evidence. I just can't express how terrible I think that idea is.

  • 3 votes
#6.21 - Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:31 AM EDT
murat

So now you seem to be arguing that God wants people to believe in something without solid evidence.

Not to mention the dire consequences that await you if you don't. So its "free will", but with a explcit threat of "bad thingsâ„¢" if you exercise the free will and choose not to believe.

  • 3 votes
#6.22 - Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:41 AM EDT
Adam Kemp

(I missed this before)

Can you really prove this?

Yes, I can. If you're going to argue that nothing exists at all or that nothing is objective then you're not worth arguing with. Such philosophies are not worth my time.

  • 2 votes
#6.23 - Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:19 AM EDT
ericfive

Your argument has changed. Instead of being about free will, now it's about faith versus reason

I don't see how this follows. What I pointed out is that the choice is in the belief, that is, I choose whether to believe. So, if I have built-in, undeniable proof, I have no choice, and therefore, no free will.

Yes, I can.

Let's take a simpler object, say your computer keyboard. How can you prove it's existence outside your own mind?

  • 1 vote
#6.24 - Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:34 AM EDT
Brian Ford

Let's take a simpler object, say your computer keyboard. How can you prove it's existence outside your own mind?

I suppose I could hit my cubicle neighbor in the head with it and then ask him if his head hurts.

  • 8 votes
#6.25 - Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:37 AM EDT
Vincent Grayson

I think it's a bit misleading to even say that belief is a choice.

When presented with the ideas of most religions, there isn't a long, drawn out decision making process on my part as to whether or not to believe their ideas.

I simply believe it, or I don't. From the talk I've heard over the years of sudden conversions from "hearing the good news", I'd say that's a fairly common thing. Belief is, imo, often without reason, when I hear something like "God created everything", there's not a decision to be made, I simply think "Nope, that's absurd", nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe others do it differently, I'd love to hear about it, but belief has never once struck me as a choice.

  • 3 votes
#6.26 - Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:48 AM EDT
Adam Kemp

Free will does not mean "everything is possible". Do you have free will to believe or not believe in your mother? I would say no. But you do have free will to love her or not.

I also agree with Vincent. Belief is not a choice. It's basically a state in your brain that represents whether something fits with what you know. With everything I know, the existence of a God just doesn't logically fit. I can't just decide to believe. It doesn't work that way. I would have to obtain new knowledge that would reconcile what I know with the existence of God, or I would have to be shown that what I know is wrong. Either way, I wouldn't be "choosing" to convert. I would just be learning that I was wrong.

Also, free will doesn't mean the freedom to do anything. Even if you had no choice to love or not love God, or to do good or evil, you could still have free will in other respects. We don't have free will to fly, but we hardly consider that reason enough to say that we have no free will. If we had similar intrinsic restrictions on whether we could do bad things then we wouldn't think of it as a lack of free will. It would just be an impossibility due to the laws of the Universe.

  • 2 votes
#6.27 - Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:58 AM EDT
Reply
Tim Baxter

I can buy the Bible as a great literary work. I can buy it as a meaningful and wondrous moral code.

As science. though, it ranks somewhere around the TeleTubbies.

  • 4 votes
Reply#7 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 3:59 PM EDT
Rhine Cyrus

This is an ad-hominem attack.

By attacking the Bible, you are attacking the very identity of the millions that follow it and without which they would have no purpose in life. This is a mass ad-hominem attack. I demand you apologize to the millions that you have offended. Else, even Jesus will not be able to save your soul. There is a time for everything. Now is the time to repent.

  • 3 votes
#7.1 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:37 PM EDT
Tim Baxter

Sorry Rhine, there's no attack there, just a simple statement of fact. The Bible is loaded with many virtues. Science isn't one ofthem.

And of all the things I may have to repent for, that's about the least of them.

  • 2 votes
#7.2 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:40 PM EDT
StacyM

I think historians and archeologists have found the bible useful for studying cultures in antiquity.

  • 2 votes
#7.3 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:54 PM EDT
Captain Nemo

Red flag! Sarcasm detected (in Rhine's post)

  • 4 votes
#7.4 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 6:41 PM EDT
Rhine Cyrus

Dammit Claus Jacobsen.
Why did you have to ruin it?

  • 2 votes
#7.5 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 7:30 PM EDT
Captain Nemo

It's too amusing, and as a true humanitarian I don't want people to miss out on the privilege :)

I've often been bewildered by the fact that some rants are virtually indistinguishable from satire. I could probably write a manual or fake an entire thread, imitating the standard issue ammunition of both camps, but I'm not the funniest guy in this forum.

I'll let the idea pass on to PMGRAH (what the hell does that acronym stand for, if anything? Is it an onomatopoeticon?) or Neo_Brutus (why have an underscore in the avatar, and does the name indicate that he is a follower of neobrutism, and is that the ideology in which you conspire to kill Cesars?).

I wonder...

  • 4 votes
#7.6 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 8:13 PM EDT
Rhine Cyrus

Ok, ok. I'll let it slide this time. It's time for my bottle of vodka before I settle down into my rocking chair and open up my favorite book - the Bible. Don't have much time though, to read. The Jerry Springer show is coming up soon. Good night.

  • 2 votes
#7.7 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 8:27 PM EDT
Reply
accordingtome

Bahahahahahahaha....good laugh. No disrespect intended towards any Christians. But that is pretty funny :)

  • 2 votes
Reply#8 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 4:09 PM EDT
Vincent Grayson

Especially confusing is the world being round thing. I could've sworn people attempting to disprove the "world is flat" belief were excommunicated or worse, by the church.

Did the church just *miss* that verse for 1000+ years or so?

  • 4 votes
#8.1 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 4:15 PM EDT
accordingtome

Yea, same goes for the Geocentric view of the universe. Hahahahaha I laugh again.....

  • 2 votes
#8.2 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 4:52 PM EDT
Reply
mvelinder

Sounds a bit Nostradamus(ish) to me... but a tad interesting I'd say.

  • 1 vote
Reply#9 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 4:42 PM EDT
newsguru

i think christians could identify with some of the evolutionists viewpoints if they did not appear so confident in the exclusion of God from the entire argument. if scientists only know a extremely small portion of all there is to know about our universe, not just our solar system, then how can they exclude the possibility that God was responsible in some way?

i thought that's what science was all about ... testing hypothesis and theories... who knows, scientists appear to be very intelligent... i'm rooting for them... maybe they'll be the one to find the proof of God and/or creation...

for their sake not mine. according to them... regardless of how i live my life, i should not expect any reward or punishment after death...

but think just logically, if they're right i have nothing to fear... but if christians are right ... they have a lot more to fear... huh?

  • 1 vote
Reply#10 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:09 PM EDT
Brian Ford

If I have to fear the results of dying and finding out that there was a God after all (even as a virtuous person) I don't regret not believing that he exists. He's not the type of person I'd want to worship.

To address your questions: Science does not deny the existence of God. Science simply does not address the possibility of God. It's more that many Christians (mostly fundamentalist Christians) cannot stand that Science does not address the idea of God and that some of the things that we've discovered through Science contradicts or could provide natural answers to (without an agenda of any kind) some of the tenets of the Christian faith. They're like that kid that can't stand to not be the center of attention, and it bugs the hell out of them that people won't pay attention to them -- even when they're demanding attention.

At any rate, if you can come up with a way to test for a universe that God has created, that's fine. I'm just saying that absolutely "nothing" we've learned thus far has provided evidence that the world "needs" that creator.

  • 6 votes
#10.1 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:18 PM EDT
StacyM

Also keep in mind that the theory of Natural Selection doesn't attempt to tell us how life on this planet orginated, it only covers how species on this earth evolved into their present day state.

  • 3 votes
#10.2 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:52 PM EDT
puglas

#1 And lo, god came back at the end of the world and said "The true faith was....Aboriginal Tribe Spirits. Sorry rest of the world, Aboriginal Tribe Spirit worshipers get to heaven. Everyone else, welcome to hell town, population: you."

See how stupid it is to bring up Pascal's Wager newsguru?

#2 It is funny that you mention what proof could be offered to disprove evolution. Considering that it is a scientific theory and by definition requires the ability to be disproved. For example, Through obvious "God's Voice and Angel Attack", but more secularly someone showing that cells have not always mutated like we see now or if you were to find modern man remains dating billions of years into the past.

As an alternative, belief in a creator simply CANNOT be disproven through any facts. "God did it" "God planted the dinosaur's as a test" "God sent this information as a test of faith".

  • 4 votes
#10.3 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 6:31 PM EDT
Captain Nemo

Science does not deny the existence of God. Science simply does not address the possibility of God.

I love this quotation. Arrogantly self-assured, but charmingly (and convincingly) so. It made me wonder if there are, indeed, circumstances under which scientists could be persuaded to take an interest in proving or disproving the existence of God - on a technical basis, that is, not just from speculation.

  • 3 votes
#10.4 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 6:44 PM EDT
Jason Coleman

Claus, I think that the only condition under which science (and those right smart scientists) could undertake the existence of God is to assume that God is falsifiable, which is a tenet of the scientific hypothesis. How could we possibly begin to assert the falsibility [<- made up world alert] of a being that most of us believe to be not of this realm?

I don't think it's a question of funding or motivation, but rather of principles of the scientific method that direct science away from the supernatural.

  • 4 votes
#10.5 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 7:48 PM EDT
Cary Quinn

then how can they exclude the possibility that God was responsible in some way?

They don't.

They don't exclude the possibility of God anymore than the include the possibility of a Flying Spagetti Monster. Scientists try to limit themselves to the things they can test and prove. It is creationistst that try to force the inclusion of God into the issue.

Claus, it is not arrogance, it is humility that the statement is based upon. It is an admission that we still have much to learn, and we cannot afford to assume that we have reached the limits of our knowledge by handing the explanation for everything else to some unproven entitity.

...and yes, there is a circumstance under which scientists could take such an interest, but it comes after they are convinced we understand the minor details of the world around us, before they would be arrogant enough to tackle the major details like a technical basis for a God.

  • 2 votes
#10.6 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 8:01 PM EDT
Captain Nemo

Well, I didn't mean arrogance in the bad way, but sort of as a salute to the astuteness of the assumption. I recall a study proving no statistically significant effect of prayer in recovery of patients. This, of course, has nothing to do with the existence of God.

But surely there are findings that would falsify the thesis that God does not exist, such as locating an message encrypted in the stars that flawlessly expressed the major tenets of a religion, such as the entire Mosaic Law, word for word.

To falsify if God does exist seems impossible, but science is already digging away at fundamental dogma of Christianity, and I don't think it is impossible to make a plausible case for the non-existence of a God. First, we would have to agree on which God, and how we define Him.

For instance, if we define God as a benign force that intervenes on behalf of anyone who proclaims faith in him, if their life is endangered, it would not be difficult to falsify the existence of such a God.

The problem is, of course, that theology defies rationality and propose a number of contradictory rules and characteristics that prevent a systematic testing of the main tenets of religion.

I know I am drifting, but I like to "think outside the box" and experiment with weird science such as time travelling, exo-biology and contra-factual history. What if, for instance, we made contact to intelligent extraterrestrial lifeforms? Would they have an option for salvation?

What if they did not have the capacity to sin according to the Biblical rules, and they were neither devils nor angels, but clearly more advanced than us? Would that fundamentally alter the way religious people view the metaphysical construct of the Universe?

The Pope would surely have some explanation problems there.

I remember an anecdote about Krushtjov, I think, who was asked by a journalist how the Soviet Union would respond if extraterrestrials visited Earth.

He responded: "We would have no problem, because any life-form advanced enough to travel the distances of space in order to reach Earth would have to be Communist."

I suppose religious people would consider aliens angels of some thought. There are some pretty entertaining interpretations of the aviation vehicle described in the Book of Ezekiel as a spacecraft for aliens, and even a French sect claiming that the human race descended from extraterrestrials, the Elohim of Genesis.

In some parts of Asia UFO sightings are often interpreted as supernatural beings thought to be benign or malicious towards men, and their appearance as forewarning of important events.

OK, that was me going all crazy for a moment. Please forget this comment immediately, as it has absolutely no relevance to anything.

  • 6 votes
#10.7 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 8:40 PM EDT
Cary Quinn

You do seem to be drifting a bit, yes...

If you want to play with what ifs, What if those extraterrestrial lifeforms had discovered proof of a divine being written in the stars and came not seeking salvation from us, but like the conquistadors of old, to provide enlightenment in their holy cause to the savages of Earth?

And that they might indeed consider us as savages, not so much for the internal conflicts we have between religion and science; but for not advancing our science enough to be at their level of understanding of creation to see the messages in the stars at all.

  • 2 votes
#10.8 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 10:09 PM EDT
Reply
Reginald Freeman

Wow, articles like this (and I realize the poster is not the author) should offend people of faith and science alike. I actually went back looking for the "satire" tag.

  • 2 votes
Reply#11 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:19 PM EDT
Ansab

What about number 3? I thought Christians weren't circumcised? This gets more confusing by the minute?

  • 1 vote
Reply#12 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:29 PM EDT
Ansab

Change that to number 2.

  • 1 vote
#12.1 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 5:29 PM EDT
Captain Nemo

Ansab, Jews are circumcised. The Old Testament, the first "half" (actually more like 2/3) of the Bible is a translation of the Jewish Torah (Tawrat), while the New Testament is thought of as the Covenant (divine pact, treaty, contract) between God and man, the one that replaced the original Covenant between God and Jew, as the Jewish people (as foreseen by God) failed to live up to the entirety of the Mosaic Law.

That's the very short version of it.

  • 2 votes
#12.2 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 6:47 PM EDT
Ansab

Thanks, it makes much more sense now.

  • 1 vote
#12.3 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 6:49 PM EDT
Jason Coleman

Ansab, apparently you aren't a Christian (or otherwise) male born in the US during the seventies or since. It's a very popular thing at the hospitals to do on newborns for some perceived health reason.

  • 4 votes
#12.4 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 7:50 PM EDT
Reply
lll

I can quote many more phrases from a Physics textbook that coincidentally and accurately describe science than from the Bible. We should start worshipping Physics; whether it's ethically right or wrong: it's always true.

  • 3 votes
Reply#13 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 6:22 PM EDT
Captain Nemo

I used to recite the Periodical Table of the Elements every day for a short period, but that was preparation for an exam. I know two persons who can quote one or more of Hamlet's monologues, and I think Shakespeare is a much better candidate as a modern secular prophet. I am still waiting for the Shakespeare Code to be released. It will be any day now.

  • 5 votes
#13.1 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 6:52 PM EDT
Reply
ajzzz

2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

Discovered or explained? It could have been observed through hundreds of years that blood-clotting peaks on the eighth day. Everybody knew that you weren't going to float off the earth before Newton was alive. Sticking "scientific" in front of fact doesn't mean that the Bible has anything to do with Science.

3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth's free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).

God hangs the earth? That's about as bad as animals or giants.

4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote).

How many times does the bible state "ends of the earth", "four corners of the earth"? He may have lived around the time of Pythagoras who may also have believed the earth was spherical? When Science believed the earth was flat, scientists using scientific methods? Long after this was written, the church believed the earth was flat, many of those who wrote the Bible believed the earth was flat.

5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn't discover this until 1864 when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

Was it talking about radio communication or fibre optic cables + digital audio? Light and radio waves are both electromagnetic waves, but they're not the same thing, you can't say radio wave when you're talking about light.

I'm not going to even touch the other bull@!$%#. Of course the bible has facts in it, it was written by men, not god. These men lived in the same universe we do with the same laws.

  • 5 votes
Reply#14 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 6:36 PM EDT
Phaedrus72

Let me say that I was raised Southern Baptist, but I find your assertions ludicrous to say the least. To say that you have stretched the meanings is truly an understatement. I bet you could make the Bible say just about anything couldn't you?

Here's one for you:

"Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning. (Psalms 30:5)"

In your hands, I guess this would be taken to mean that no one ever cries during the day.

In other words, some Christians are guilty of being too literal. You, my friend, are guilty of reading the Bible way too figuratively. The Bible, for you, is just clay in your hands, to mold into what ever shape you seem fit.

  • 3 votes
Reply#15 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 7:33 PM EDT
Aine MacDermot

Actually, I saw a similar sort of list in a book at the library, only it had to do with the Quran. And no, I don't recall the author or title. Just thought it was interesting that proponents of both religions would attempt to make such a list.

  • 3 votes
Reply#16 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 8:23 PM EDT
Tim Hettler

Sorry to veer this conversation off-topic, but why was this story tagged with 'baseball'?

  • 2 votes
Reply#17 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:02 AM EDT
ilpopi

I was wondering about that too :)

  • 1 vote
#17.1 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:44 AM EDT
drhundertwasser

because the Bible also predicted Baseball?

  • 2 votes
#17.2 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:33 AM EDT
Captain Nemo

Yes, Ezekiel 24:6-12:

"And in those days men shall construct a field whereupon they throw and strike, and the runners in the field shall be as birds of prey who hasten to bring home the price".

And the field shall be constructed on a relatively level, open area of ground with adequate water drainage, properly designed, installed and maintained irrigation systems, and workers shall be assigned to maintain turf and clay conditions.

And I saw, and see, a mound of 10 and 1/2 inches high and 18 feet from one side to the opposite, and upon it stood a man dressed in white. He was in appearance like an angel, and from his hand shot forth balls as great balls of fire, and he stood in the middle of the field which was formed as a courtyard, 90 feet on each side.

And a voice said to me: You shall erect around the field a fence to contain the strays and the fowls that none of the worshippers will be destroyed by the glory that goes out of the field.

From the south corner to the north you shall measure 127 feet and 3 and 3/8 inches, no more and no less, lest ye be judged and cast out of the camp, where there will be tears and misery.

From the south corner to the east, you shall draw a white line, and the line shall be known to all as the foul line. From the south corner to the west, you shall draw a white line, and it shall be known to all as the foul line, and no strays are to enter outside the foul line.

And the voice said to me: The length of each fowl line is equal to the line that goes from the north corner to the east, and from the north corner to the west, and the number is 90 feet.

  • 4 votes
#17.3 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:28 PM EDT
Brad Leclerc

hehe

  • 1 vote
#17.4 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:43 PM EDT
Reply
Berkamin

Isaiah may have said "the circle of the earth", but the scriptures also speak of "the ends of the earth" and Isaiah 41:9 says of Israel

"I took you from the ends of the earth,
from its farthest corners I called you.
I said, 'You are my servant';
I have chosen you and have not rejected you."

I think some of the verses you interpret are a stretch; it's not very winsome to interpret verses that help your case one way and to dismiss or overlook the same form of interpretation on verses that don't, such as the above verse from Isaiah.

What convinces me of the veracity of the Bible is prophecy fulfillment. What you're doing here is inviting a fight from folks who would never be convinced of scripture anyway. There are more productive ways of discussing the scriptures, IMHO.

  • 2 votes
Reply#18 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:07 AM EDT
Berkamin

(In case you can't infer from the verse I quoted, the verse implies that the earth has corners-- in other words, that it's not round. You can't have it both ways and interpret the verse you cited as being "scientific" if you don't take the other verses with the same approach. A biased approach can make a case for any position.)

  • 1 vote
#18.1 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:09 AM EDT
Jason Coleman

Further, to be accurate, the earth isn't a circle anyway; nor is it even a sphere. It's a bit oblong, like an egg. However, even if the Book of Isaiah had said the egg of the earth, I'd have a hard time believing it was producing some sort of scientific based knowledge.

Also, we should all keep in mind that newsguru has said that he/she didn't write this.

  • 3 votes
#18.2 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 AM EDT
Adam Kemp

Further, to be accurate, the earth isn't a circle anyway; nor is it even a sphere.

Yes, and if you look at the various Bible translations you will see that most of them use either "circle" or "disc". Only two that I saw said "sphere", and those were the very loose translations that are meant to more clearly convey the meaning the translators want you to hear.

  • 4 votes
#18.3 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:25 AM EDT
Reply
Berkamin

Ugh. As a Bible enthusiast and a Christian, this really bugs me. #7 totally misinterprets what God is saying. The "morning stars" are angels and glorious beings; the verse makes this clear:

Job 38:7
. . . while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God [understood to be angels] shouted for joy?

This can be seen by how the term "morning star" is used elsewhere in scripture:

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=morning%20star&version1=31&searchtype=all

Even the king of Babylon is called a "morning star", in the passage which is traditionally interpreted as addressing Satan. (FYI, the "morning star" is another term for the planet Venus, which is "Phosphoros" in Greek, a term which means "light bearer", which the Latins translated as "Lucifer". This term was not used to refer to Satan until after Jerome translated the Latin vulgate in the 400's.)

  • 2 votes
Reply#19 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:16 AM EDT
Arne

What bugs me most about this is that the ones who wrote the article usually take the bible extremely literally, e.g. when arguing for creationism, but have no problem phrasing scientific insights as metaphors and stretching these as they like, as in stating that atoms are invisible. This is like saying the bricks in a wall are invisible, because you can't discern them from one mile away. I'm a christian myself, but this is ridiculous.

  • 2 votes
Reply#20 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:44 AM EDT
Behind My Screen

Umm... The ancient greeks knew the earth was round. It was medieval, europe that denied such a truth.

  • 2 votes
Reply#21 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:21 AM EDT
Adam Kemp

The Greeks also proposed that everything was made up of tiny particles called "atoms". That's why we use a Greek term for the concept. They invented it.

I was a bit surprised to learn that we "only recently" discovered atoms. Define "recent".

  • 2 votes
#21.1 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:28 AM EDT
Captain Nemo

Why did "mid-evil" Europe deny the roundness of the Earth? What could they possibly stand to gain from defending such a pointless dogma? My guess is it has to do with the cosmology of heaven and hell. Hell is sort of probable if you believe that the Earth is round - which I personally do - but Heaven becomes this all around us type of thing. Could it be the universe the theologians were opposed to, a religiously inspired horror vacui?

  • 3 votes
#21.2 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:32 PM EDT
Daniel A. HalloDeleted
Captain Nemo

You are, of course, right about the Galileo problem, and I sort of suggested that it is essential to believe in the exclusivity of human intelligence in order to accept the concept of salvation in my comment about extraterrestrials.

But Isaac Newton explained gravity much later than Columbus, so it's not obvious that obvious why the university of Salamanca would be so opposed to "roundness", and there was most likely a partisan religious zeal in defense of Biblical dogma behind the argument of "falling off".

  • 1 vote
#21.4 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:18 PM EDT
Daniel A. HalloDeleted
Reply
Daniel A. HalloDeleted
drhundertwasser

Newsguru writes:

science has become a religion itself

This is wholly incorrect.
Science is not a Religion.

i use my own good judgment and faith to believe of science what sounds reasonable to me.

Then you are doing yourself a disservice, and you are certainly not doing science. Science requires the rigorous gathering of evidence through exploration and experimentation. Science is the intensive study of every bit of data gathered by scientists around the world over the course of years, decades, and centuries.

Sitting back and reading about science and making a decision for yourself about whether you believe the findings of any given report, as if you were a member of a jury is not science. Your opinion on the matter is meaningless in the world of Science. If someone doesn't believe in a scientific finding it doesn't matter - it is up to the skeptic to gather evidence which proves that the scientific finding was wrong.

just as a lot of christians and so-called christians can't agree on many subjects... science is the same...

Again, this is an incorrect view of science. Science is not based on or rhetorical arguments, decrees made by officials, or anything of the sort.
Also, with regard certain key issues - the ones which tend to be hotly political - evolution being the foremost of these, there is nearly universal agreement among scientists, because the evidence is overwhelming.

one year they tell eggs are good for you b/c of the protein, etc., we rush out and eat more eggs.... i take from science what's it worth, but it is a religion that i'll never worship....

This proves that Science is not religion. Science never asked you to treat it like religion. Science doesn't want you to worship it.

Your "belief" in the first report about eggs being healthy should not ever be equated with belief in the religous sense. The most powerful, and most non-religious aspect of Science is that Science is willing to discard outdated beliefs when new evidence is discovered that, after being, tested every which way possible by the entire scientific community, is found to overturn a previously held explanation for how the world works.

Scientists learn about the world by examining it, probing it's depths and heights with ever greater power and sensitivity. Science does not have the hubris to say All The Answers Are Known by any human, nor are they contained in one book, let alone in all the books (and blogs!) ever written.

This is how Science advances our understanding of the world.

  • 11 votes
Reply#23 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:26 AM EDT
Behind My Screen

I am reminded of some discussion from one of TopJedi's recent columns

  • 3 votes
#23.1 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:56 PM EDT
drhundertwasser

which one? i'd like to check it out.

  • 1 vote
#23.2 - Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:11 PM EDT
Behind My Screen

His latest one.

  • 1 vote
#23.3 - Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:16 PM EDT
Reply
A. Pavluck

I have faith.... that this is impossible.

  • 1 vote
Reply#24 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:52 AM EDT
ericfive

There is also the unpopular but still plausible view that the ancients had a much stronger grasp on natural reality than we give them credit for, or that we know how to understand, that is, we cannot understand what they understood or how.

Our best science is still an inaccurate model of the universe(s) based on certain assumptions. Given a different set of assumptions, one could come up with another inaccurate but workable model.

While the 15 points listed in the original article are a pretty far stretch from being linked to any modern science, it is conceivable that the ancients were writing scientific treatises, just in a language we can't properly interpret, e.g. allegory or something like gematria.

  • 1 vote
Reply#25 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:48 PM EDT
ericfive

addendum

If we don't know the assumptions, the language might be intended plain as day but we might not see it, becuase we read it using our modern assumptions. Further, if the language has been altered for political expediency (Nicea), who knows what was originally there?

  • 1 vote
#25.1 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:52 PM EDT
murat

it is conceivable that the ancients were writing scientific treatises, just in a language we can't properly interpret, e.g. allegory or something like gematria.

It's also conceivable that they had no idea what they were talking about.

  • 3 votes
#25.2 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:09 PM EDT
ericfive

It's conceivable, but I think unlikely that they had no idea what they were talking about. Even if the stories were just fairy tales, they probably knew it, and were telling them for a reason (entertainment, moral instruction, social cohesion, political manipulation, etc.)

Also, just for the sake of being unequivocal, I did not mean to suggest that the ridiculous conclusion of the original article in any way indicates anything about the original texts (and oral traditions) or their authors.

I grew up in a religious setting where some presented arguments like these seriously, and it elicits great sympathy from me for those involved.

  • 1 vote
#25.3 - Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:36 AM EDT
Reply
Yaakov

(As a religious person) I disagree with this type of article.

For people who already believe in God, it is preaching to the choir (and in some cases, insulting the choir, to pretend that God's existence will be proved one way or another if you add or disprove another "fact from the bible").

For people who do not believe, it is just another opportunity to make fun of religion.

Nothing is gained for either side.

  • 4 votes
Reply#26 - Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:35 AM EDT
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
(XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
Newsvine Privacy Statement
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
FUN STUFF:
  • Leaderboard |
  • E-Mail Alerts |
  • Top of the Vine |
  • Newsvine Live |
  • Newsvine Archives |
  • The Greenhouse |
COMPANY STUFF:
  • Code of Honor |
  • Company Info |
  • Contact Us |
  • Jobs |
  • User Agreement |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • About our ads
LEGAL STUFF:
  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com