Science and the Bible

[7H3]

The Bible is no different from any other fictional story, with the exception that it's an anthology since there are multiple authors. The amount of inconsistencies, whether they be scientific or non-scientific, is quite a lot.

One of the most obvious inaccuracies in the Bible is its support of geocentricism, which Galileo ultimately debunked.

You are greatly misinformed about contradictions in the bible... and geocentrism is not a proof thereof at all as the bible did purport that but rather the scientific minds at the time even though they thought they were basing it off the bible...

Evolution is a theory and is only seen on a micro scale. All the research I've done on the matter does not reinforce the theory as fact in any shape or form. While I still think it is possible to occur in at macro level I have not seen any evidence of such an event. I also have a christian friend who has his doctorate in science and believes in evolution. While the scientific community loves to present evolution as fact it is merely just a theory based in less fact than most scientific discoveries and endeavors. Evolution at the very base level it just means something came from something else based on loose observations and trying to tie in other actual scientific occurrences that stand alone without evolution as a factor. ergo every aspect of evolutionary theory is unknown in regards to 4 out of the 5 w's. The only thing that remains is the "what?" question which makes for a really weak argument. When the other questions are answered then it can be considered a law of nature or scientific fact but until then there are major points of information that need to be filled out and clued in for it to even be acceptable as a science.

Personally I don't accept anything at face value and question everything. If i care enough(or am interested enough) about a topic I will research it from various sides and then make my own decision based on the data available.

Again I do not think one precludes the other. As it is written Proverbs 25:2 "It is the glory of G-D to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search it out."

[the-pi-guy]

Theory of relativity is just a "theory", and yet my GPS works pretty well.  

How much of evolutionary evidence have you looked into?

[7H3]

Theory of relativity is just a "theory", and yet my GPS works pretty well.  

How much of evolutionary evidence have you looked into?

I actually wrote an essay on it in college. I interviewed one of our science professors asking him about the topic with some questions I had about it, and of course I did research a few varying theories on the matter. I believe I spent the course of about a month researching various topics on the matter and related topics including radioactive isotope dating, natural selection, and other things as well. After all that research the conclusion I came to was that it sounds plausible, but there is no concrete evidence of macro evolution and there are huge misconceptions in the science itself which lend itself to be faulty at best. ego carbon dating is really only accurate within a highly limited window beyond recorded history. Other radioactive isotopes used for dating will often disagree with each other and are less accurate overall compared to carbon dating. The half life of carbon 14 is directly related to our atmosphere which has only been more recently studied and monitored in regards to how it can affect carbon 14. However, I did not see any data that would suggest such factors as atmosphere or solar seasons being taken into account for carbon dating which is why it is mostly only accurate to the degree that can be held accountable upon recorded history.

I do not subscribe to any belief in age of the world, but the whole premise that the earth has to be old due to evolution and the big bang theory seems as silly to me as the idea that the earth is only 6k years old based on some peoples interpretation of the bible. The problem with this type of reasoning lends itself to only seeking validity to account for one's own view about another theory rather than objectively seeking to find out how old the planet or universe is currently. On either side of the coin it is common practice to overlook data that contradicts the accepted view rather than utilize such data to further investigate a competing viewpoint which is the whole point of science.

-
I removed a sentence from my earlier post which i felt was offensive. I stated that only "faithful" or "uninformed" believed in evolution, which is completely not true. Many informed people (even those of faith) believe in evolution after researching the matter and deciding for themselves. Also there are people who believe it because that it was they were taught to be true.

I believe truth to be absolute and devoid of the necessity of peoples' belief in it to be true. Much like many scientific minds believing earth was the center of the universe (or flat) these things can and will be changed as we grow in understanding of our universe.

[Aura7541]

You are greatly misinformed about contradictions in the bible... and geocentrism is not a proof thereof at all as the bible did purport that but rather the scientific minds at the time even though they thought they were basing it off the bible...

Evolution is a theory and is only seen on a micro scale. All the research I've done on the matter does not reinforce the theory as fact in any shape or form. While I still think it is possible to occur in at macro level I have not seen any evidence of such an event. I also have a christian friend who has his doctorate in science and believes in evolution. While the scientific community loves to present evolution as fact it is merely just a theory based in less fact than most scientific discoveries and endeavors. Evolution at the very base level it just means something came from something else based on loose observations and trying to tie in other actual scientific occurrences that stand alone without evolution as a factor. ergo every aspect of evolutionary theory is unknown in regards to 4 out of the 5 w's. The only thing that remains is the "what?" question which makes for a really weak argument. When the other questions are answered then it can be considered a law of nature or scientific fact but until then there are major points of information that need to be filled out and clued in for it to even be acceptable as a science.

Personally I don't accept anything at face value and question everything. If i care enough(or am interested enough) about a topic I will research it from various sides and then make my own decision based on the data available.

Again I do not think one precludes the other. As it is written Proverbs 25:2 "It is the glory of G-D to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search it out."

The thing is, though, is that I'm not misinformed about the Bible. In addition, I only used geocentricism as one of the many examples of the book's contradictions, not as ultimate proof. Noah's Ark is also a really great example of how scientifically wrong the Bible is on many fronts. There was no flood of the magnitude the Bible described and the ark would easily founder. The Wyoming foundered because the waters twisted the schooner in all directions and this ship is way smaller than Noah's Ark. Not to mention, Noah's Ark is a ripoff (Epic of Gilgamesh) of a ripoff (Atra-hasis) of the original Sumerian story (Ziusudra).

Evolution always happens at the "micro-scale". Some scientists like to use the terms, microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution describes the genetic changes in an organism, which can be achieved through mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, migration, and selective mating. All 5 mechanisms change the frequencies of alleles from generation to generation. Mutations can even make new alleles since they can change the DNA sequence. Macroevolution describes the changes in organisms that lead to a new species. These changes are the genetic changes I have described earlier. So basically macroevolution is the result of microevolution. Your "micro vs macro" argument ultimately fails because they are not mutually exclusive. Oh and you can easily observe evolution at the "macro-scale". See industrial melanism or pesticide resistance.

You know, you brag about being not taking things at face value and question everything. Instead, your behavior is reminiscent that of a cult from When Prophecy Fails by Festinger, Riecken, and Scachter when their prophecy failed. The evidence is clearcut and in front of your face. However, instead of accepting it, you decide to double-down. You form conclusions and then try to find evidence rather than gathering evidence and then synthesize a conclusion.

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

I went ahead a split to topic off. Hope I didn't mess it up.

[Cute Pikachu]

If anyone needs to know(I read this on internet) but its symbolism.
God didn't make the world like that in 7 days and Adam and Eve and the snake arent real but symbolic.
Genesis is pretty much symbolism.

[Legend]

I went ahead a split to topic off. Hope I didn't mess it up.

I switched the title to "Science and the Bible," since no one was really putting them head to head in a deathmatch.

Also moved it to community.

[Cute Pikachu]

Majority of the things that sound really not possible is mostly symbolism.
For example The water turning it to blood is believed to coincidentally be a red tide.

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

I switched the title to "Science and the Bible," since no one was really putting them head to head in a deathmatch.

Also moved it to community.

That works.

[Cute Pikachu]

Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are supported by the Catholic Church it seems
Pope Francis Speaks Out on Evolution (And Why It's No Surprise)

[the-pi-guy]

Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are supported by the Catholic Church it seems
Pope Francis Speaks Out on Evolution (And Why It's No Surprise)

I like to bring this up.

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître; 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed (independently of Russian physicist Alexander Friedman) the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[8]

A Catholic priest actually derived the big bang theory.

[7H3]

The thing is, though, is that I'm not misinformed about the Bible. In addition, I only used geocentricism as one of the many examples of the book's contradictions, not as ultimate proof. Noah's Ark is also a really great example of how scientifically wrong the Bible is on many fronts. There was no flood of the magnitude the Bible described and the ark would easily founder. The Wyoming foundered because the waters twisted the schooner in all directions and this ship is way smaller than Noah's Ark. Not to mention, Noah's Ark is a ripoff (Epic of Gilgamesh) of a ripoff (Atra-hasis) of the original Sumerian story (Ziusudra).

None of that is true at all. The fact that some believed the earth to be the center of the universe based on their interpretation of the bible at the time, does not mean that the bible itself was the perpetrator of this scientific belief. Gilgamesh in its best form is still an incomplete account of a flood story while the hebraic version has more details, and while some say gilgamesh is older or its original sumerian transcipts (most complete version was dated to around 650BC while older sumerian fragments were from possibly around 3300BC). You can believe what you want to believe about which is older or which was used as a potential basis for the other, but neither point can be fully proven.

You can believe a flood happened or not there is evidence of it happening as well as contrary findings and evidence. To simply dismiss it and only look for evidence to support one's own views is folly.

quote 2:
Evolution always happens at the "micro-scale". Some scientists like to use the terms, microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution describes the genetic changes in an organism, which can be achieved through mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, migration, and selective mating. All 5 mechanisms change the frequencies of alleles from generation to generation. Mutations can even make new alleles since they can change the DNA sequence. Macroevolution describes the changes in organisms that lead to a new species. These changes are the genetic changes I have described earlier. So basically macroevolution is the result of microevolution. Your "micro vs macro" argument ultimately fails because they are not mutually exclusive. Oh and you can easily observe evolution at the "macro-scale". See industrial melanism or pesticide resistance.

I have not seen any evidence of microevolution causing a macro change or a change in species. natural selection and breeding are not true evolution, but rather actual occurrences that are (I believe) inappropriately used as a basis or evidence for evolution even though these things stand on their own merit regardless of evolution (or lack thereof). We can however, observe such changes and causes of microevolution as possible pathways for evolution and its potential effects on evolution. Even still they are not proof in and of themselves of macro evolution. I still think that macro evolution (or evolution itself) has great possibility, but don't think it is probable. Perhaps some new discovery will clear up the doubts I have on the matter, but until then to me its just an interesting theory.

quote 3:
You know, you brag about being not taking things at face value and question everything. Instead, your behavior is reminiscent that of a cult from When Prophecy Fails by Festinger, Riecken, and Scachter when their prophecy failed. The evidence is clearcut and in front of your face. However, instead of accepting it, you decide to double-down. You form conclusions and then try to find evidence rather than gathering evidence and then synthesize a conclusion.

I think your last comment is uncalled for as you don't know me and don't know the research or time i've put into understanding evolution or anything else for that matter. There are two things I don't question: Jesus is the messiah, and the bible. Though I do actually question the bible just not the way other people do, as I believe my questions stem from either my own lack of understanding or translation (usually my own lack of understanding though). I don't think, however, that a belief in the bible and Jesus means you can't believe in evolution or TBBT, nor do I believe there is anything in either that contradicts the other. I am on the contrary very open minded on such matters and will continue to be so. It just so happens I made my mind up on the evolution theory not due to any religious reasoning but my own research on the subject.

I also want to note that my religious studies are for religious purposes and my scientific studies are for scientific purposes. I do not study the bible as way to do scientific research, nor do I read scientific studies and research as way to prove or disprove religious faith.

[Aura7541]

None of that is true at all. The fact that some believed the earth to be the center of the universe based on their interpretation of the bible at the time, does not mean that the bible itself was the perpetrator of this scientific belief. Gilgamesh in its best form is still an incomplete account of a flood story while the hebraic version has more details, and while some say gilgamesh is older or its original sumerian transcipts (most complete version was dated to around 650BC while older sumerian fragments were from possibly around 3300BC). You can believe what you want to believe about which is older or which was used as a potential basis for the other, but neither point can be fully proven.

You can believe a flood happened or not there is evidence of it happening as well as contrary findings and evidence. To simply dismiss it and only look for evidence to support one's own views is folly.

I have not seen any evidence of microevolution causing a macro change or a change in species. natural selection and breeding are not true evolution, but rather actual occurrences that are (I believe) inappropriately used as a basis or evidence for evolution even though these things stand on their own merit regardless of evolution (or lack thereof). We can however, observe such changes and causes of microevolution as possible pathways for evolution and its potential effects on evolution. Even still they are not proof in and of themselves of macro evolution. I still think that macro evolution (or evolution itself) has great possibility, but don't think it is probable. Perhaps some new discovery will clear up the doubts I have on the matter, but until then to me its just an interesting theory.

I think your last comment is uncalled for as you don't know me and don't know the research or time i've put into understanding evolution or anything else for that matter. There are two things I don't question: Jesus is the messiah, and the bible. Though I do actually question the bible just not the way other people do, as I believe my questions stem from either my own lack of understanding or translation (usually my own lack of understanding though). I don't think, however, that a belief in the bible and Jesus means you can't believe in evolution or TBBT, nor do I believe there is anything in either that contradicts the other. I am on the contrary very open minded on such matters and will continue to be so. It just so happens I made my mind up on the evolution theory not due to any religious reasoning but my own research on the subject.

Okay, I'll bite. Calling the Epic of Gilgamesh as an incomplete story is very intellectually dishonest. Ziusudra, which was the source material, existed in 17th century BC. The source material existed over 1000 years before the Book of Genesis was written. The flood never happened because there is no archaeological evidence for it. Also, Bill Nye came up with a really good counterargument regarding kangaroo fossils during his debate with Ken Ham.

Your perspective on evolution and its sub-categories are horribly incorrect. Evolution has five major components which include natural selection and selective mating. The whole gist of evolution is the change of allele frequencies in populations or introduction to new genes, for these changes to be large enough to create new species via reproductive isolation. There are many isolation mechanisms, both pre- and post-zygotic. These include incompatibility of naughtiness cells, behavioral differences, geological barriers, hybrid infertility, and so forth. Do note that this process takes millions of years for most multicellular organisms. We can see it in person on organisms with really short generations, hence why bacteria and insects are often used as an example for evolution. You said that natural selection and selective mating are not true evolution. They're not types of evolution; they're components of it.

I, along with many others, personally do not use the terms microevolution and macroevolution because the definition of the latter term is fuzzy. "Changes that lead to a new species", the last part is where the definition has a problem because the definition of a species is widely debated among the scientific community. Ring species are perfect examples that demonstrate the fuzziness.

You say that my last paragraph of my previous comment was uncalled for, but your response only reinforced my conjecture. You say you don't question the notion of Jesus as the messiah and the Bible. Well, there lies the problem. You already have preconveived notions and therefore, are unable to look at things in an objective manner. You make conclusions on the basis that the Bible is irrefutable, which is absolutely false.

[Legend]

Okay, I'll bite. Calling the Epic of Gilgamesh as an incomplete story is very intellectually dishonest. Ziusudra, which was the source material, existed in 17th century BC. The source material existed nearly 2000 years before the Bible was written.

Bible is a two parter. The Old Testament was around 16th to 12th century bc so it's 100 to 500 years, not 2,000.

[Aura7541]

Bible is a two parter. The Old Testament was around 16th to 12th century bc so it's 100 to 500 years, not 2,000.

Oh, whoops. I meant to say the Book of Genesis, not the Bible. And how did I end up hitting 2 instead of 1? Guess I got too caught up in the moment... -_-

The publication of Ziusudra and the Book of Genesis is nearly over 1000 years apart. Ziusudra was written in 17th century BC while the Book of Genesis, which contains Noah's Ark, was first written in 500 BC. I should probably fix this on my other comment.