Is the Bible Really Scientifically Accurate? (page 4)

JWoods

Jwoods the fact that bible literalists dismiss archeological evidence if it doesn't conform to their world view would indicate they are interested in the search for truth. "If ain't in the bible it must be from Satan, that is the attitude what really stifles human endeavour

There is a fundy true-Bible-believer here at work who actually thinks that God put the dinosaur fossils into the earth "as fossils originally" (no living dinosaurs really walked the earth) in an effort to "fool" unbelievers into going away from the true words of the bible.

For a long time, the JW world actually believed that ALL CREATION on the earth was done in about 49,000 years, most of it being done in the early part of those 7 x 7,000 year old "creative days".

For the most part, though, it is useless to try to argue observational science to a bible literalist - they will go to any length to deny the physical record in favor of some bible notion of reality.

Farkel

:It's easy for a "believer" to say that, but is it intellectually honest?

I don't know. Perhaps we should ask a talking snake.

Farkel

JWoods

So, how do you know the same corruption is not institutionally in place in other disciplines?

Well, let me give you some examples that actually worked:

Discovery of relativity and quantum theory early in the past century.

Discovery of the neutron (1932) and subsequently that Uranium could support a self-sustaining fission reaction. A-bomb and nuclear power by 1945.

Discovery of the standard physics model, unification of the weak force and electromagnetism by the 1960s.

Discovery of the nature of the DNA structure (double helix & the chemistry) in the 1960s, today we can easily sequence and compare DNA for crime prevention purposes.

--- Lasers, transistors, high capacity batteries, advances in internal combustion engines, cell phones, mini computers, satellite technology, space travel, --- (and many more of course) ---

All the result of science that was correct, real, peer-reviewed, and which worked in real life.

Perry

So I take that answer as a no....you don't know if other disciplines are infected with the same systemic rot as the meteorological community. Peer Review might have worked in predicting weather a few hours before they could 200 years ago. But, as you now know, those scientific processes that produced these successes couldn't stop a global hoax from being invented and perpetrated from the same folks...could it?

There are zero guarantees that other global hoaxes havn't been invented as well. In fact climategate provides valuable insight into the redaction of data through the peer review filtering prcess.

gubberningbody

The question is a logical fallacy - the complex question.

Asking the question "Is the Bible really scientifically accurate?" is like asking if a history book about the United States is scientifically accurate.

Science is about the verifiable, the testable. You have an hypothesis regarding a causal chain and you design a test which could provide substantiation to such a hypothesis.

Are all statements in the Bible subject to such a formulation?

No.

So can you ask the question in this form?

No.

You have to break it down into pieces.

cantleave

Are you kidding? Where have you been the last few weeks?

I can tell you where I haven't been - I haven't been on conspiracy websites reading speculative tripe.

What was going in the UEA was NOT peer review, but exactly the opposite, a hiding of facts to provide a biased message. As I said beore true peer review is a publishing of research for scrutiny by the entire scientific community.

Perry

Cant leave,

But that's just it. Many scientists couldn't get their data published. So they got control of a "peer reviewed" journal. Then, those in power (and money) were plotting to demonize the previously esteemed journal.

These are facts. You may not like the facts. But, you cannot change the facts, no matter how much you may want to in order for you to feel more comfortable with your belief system.

Was all spelled out here on this thread

JWoods

Perry, I really thought the post I did would be self-explanatory.

Spelled out simply: All those examples of scientific success proved themselves through careful peer review. So, NO - I do not believe that there are "many other branches of science that are infected with the same systemic rot" as the climate issue.

I don't even think that all the climate scientists are infected with that rot - just that politically the ones that desperately want global warming for political purpose got put into the media forefront and the opposing reviewers got pushed back. It didn't work, though, did it? I.E. - the fraud was revealed just in time for Copenhagen.

Other silly frauds quickly revealed in the science community were "cold fusion", various forms of "perpetual motion", and so forth.

So - my bottom line is: Science tends to self-correct its ideas as they are put forward. The Bible, taken literally, contradicts simple & logical science.

cantleave

What I am saying that is NOT Peer review. It is a corruption of process. At the end of the day this thread is about whether the bioble is scientific and that has had no peer review and doesn't hold up to the flimisiest of scrutiny. Talking animals, magic tricks, worldwide floods, pillars of fire and smoke (and no subsequent signs of mass migration) are not scientific.

OnTheWayOut

Perry, Science is a business. Business has flaws and corruption in it. You can find flaws and corruption in Science. Still, people are free to look at science and new data and learn from it. They don't claim God gave them inspiration or correct answers to everything.

But the Bible does claim inspiration. It can fall all on it's own by proven data without picking on the individual flaws and corruptions of science.

Because one group of men faked an archaeological find of pre-human bones, does that mean that God created man 6000 years ago and it is impossible for man to have evolved? Well, then if we find similar errors in the Bible, it proves that the Hindus have the correct religion. See how silly we can get?

Is the Bible Really Scientifically Accurate?

Share this