[_ Old Earth _] Job and Science

[stranger]

How does this relate to science? I am not sure exactly what you are trying to imply or say?

Christian world view:

I am saying that the activity of 'God revealing' is the key to knowing anything truly. We know because God knows and our knowledge is derivative of His.

In terms of what the believing or unbelieving scientist discover - yes I say that God reveals that truth also at the point that the (true) discovery is made.

Consider: Job 38:36

Who has put wisdom in the innermost being,
or has given understanding to the mind?

God!

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Atonement]

Shifting the burden of proof.

Paleontology
Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. I think you will agree that 1½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lotâ€â€since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible.

Astronomy
The Bible says that each star is unique: Which has been proven by Science

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe:

Jeremiah 31:35,36 Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name): “If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever.â€Â

The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space: Many Scientist have wondered how the Earth stayes in place, still this question is left unanswered. Though there have been theories

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

Meteorology
The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere: Wind current

Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.

The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics:

Job 28:25 To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure.


I could go on with Science and Scriptures with the following

Biology
Anthropology
Hydrology
Geology
Physics

However, The purpose of this thread is not to explain what a great science text the Bible is, but to show that it is consistent with scientific facts. Still, the Bible mentions some things that we can not explain. Yet, if God is really God, He should have the ability to do some things we can not explain.
Such as Hydrothermal vents and new forms of life that were first discovered at mid-ocean ridges in 1977. How many people knew about Hydrothermal vents 40 years ago? No one.. Do a search on Hydrothermal vents

 

[blunthitta4life]

Still what is scientific about those observations made in the scripture? Sir Francis Bacon came up with scientific method in the early 17th century and since then all science has been based on it. What the writers are doing in the bible are just making observations and attributing it to God. There is nothing scientific (in the modern sense) about that since there is no experimenation.

he Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere: Wind current

Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.

The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics:

Job 28:25 To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure.

These people lived near seas so of course they had knowledge of wind. Just like most of the ancient civilizations around the mediteranean sea. It is an observation attributed to God.

However, The purpose of this thread is not to explain what a great science text the Bible is, but to show that it is consistent with scientific facts. Still, the Bible mentions some things that we can not explain. Yet, if God is really God, He should have the ability to do some things we can not explain.

It is consitant with scientific facts but the bible only makes observations and then attributes it to God. I think you over exagerrating here. It would be like the first person who realizes water is needed to grow crops and says well God most make water. Of course the beginning of that previous statement is true, water is needed for plants to maintain life through different biological processes. However, the observer wouldn't know that and how would you test to see if God made water?

Such as Hydrothermal vents and new forms of life that were first discovered at mid-ocean ridges in 1977. How many people knew about Hydrothermal vents 40 years ago? No one.. Do a search on Hydrothermal vents

Not sure where you are trying to go with that?

 

[Atonement]

Still what is scientific about those observations made in the scripture? Sir Francis Bacon came up with scientific method in the early 17th century and since then all science has been based on it. What the writers are doing in the bible are just making observations and attributing it to God. There is nothing scientific (in the modern sense) about that since there is no experimenation.

Blunt, why don't you educate yourself in the Scriptures provided. These Scriptures were foretold thousands of years ago, and yet today you say they meaning nothing. 500yrs ago you would not have stated such a claim, because 500 years ago Science is no where it is today, this proves the Bible to be correct, and you have yet been unable to prove otherwise. You come and state your opinion with no facts, the Bible is full of facts and I proved it.. And you can not state that what I have said is not facts of Science, or you would show true ignorance in that post.. So therefore can you in ANY WAY discredit the Bible, by using Science?? I Used the Bible to provide Science is correct. But that it was foretold thousands of years ago, and Science is only playing catch up.. Thousands of years ago people thought the world was flat, but if needed, I could also provide Scripture that it's round, which was written thousands of years ago!!

 

[stranger]

Still what is scientific about those observations made in the scripture? Sir Francis Bacon came up with scientific method in the early 17th century and since then all science has been based on it. What the writers are doing in the bible are just making observations and attributing it to God. There is nothing scientific (in the modern sense) about that since there is no experimenation.
. . .

Hi,

If I take man - the first thing I learn is that God made man in His own image after His own likeness. Man reflects the image of God. This is the starting point for understanding man. Man is an image bearer. So immediately I can distinguish man from animals by this quality or trait. Early on we also learn God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living being . . .

So I can now start to answer the question: What is man?
Do you suppose there is no mileage in this line of enquiry?

Let me suggest that the idea that some apes started to walk upright and learnt to use tools and developed native cunning and evolved into man - offers you nothing worthy of being called science.

Which of the two starting points strikes you as scientific?

In Christ: Stranger

 

[blunthitta4life]

What are you talking about? How much insight does a person need to gaze up into the stars and notice that there's a variety of stars or notice patterns in wind currents? There really is nothing earth shattering that you posted that wasn't already known. In 10000 BC, settlers who would become the Egyptians were mastering the techniques of agriculture and herding. By 6000 BC they were constructing large scale buildings and had an organized society. They created a complex culture, religious system, art, grand architexture, and etc. all without the Bible. They did pretty good without "divine guidance." Look at the Mayas and how advanced they were in the beginning of the first century AD.

I Used the Bible to provide Science is correct.

You "prove" science being "correct" by using the scientific method not just assuming it is correct because it is stated in the bible.

But that it was foretold thousands of years ago, and Science is only playing catch up.. Thousands of years ago people thought the world was flat, but if needed, I could also provide Scripture that it's round, which was written thousands of years ago!!

Science is catching up because society was becoming more secular and didn't rely on "God did it" as a reason.

500yrs ago you would not have stated such a claim, because 500 years ago Science is no where it is today, this proves the Bible to be correct, and you have yet been unable to prove otherwise. You come and state your opinion with no facts, the Bible is full of facts and I proved it.

Science shows that a global flood didn't happen nor was the Earth created in 7 24 hour days. However, I'm sure you interpret genesis to suit however long 7 days is.

Thousands of years ago people thought the world was flat, but if needed, I could also provide Scripture that it's round, which was written thousands of years ago!!

I'm curious to what the scripture says so post it.

 

[Atonement]

What are you talking about? How much insight does a person need to gaze up into the stars and notice that there's a variety of stars or notice patterns in wind currents? There really is nothing earth shattering that you posted that wasn't already known. In 10000 BC, settlers who would become the Egyptians were mastering the techniques of agriculture and herding. By 6000 BC they were constructing large scale buildings and had an organized society. They created a complex culture, religious system, art, grand architexture, and etc. all without the Bible. They did pretty good without "divine guidance." Look at the Mayas and how advanced they were in the beginning of the first century AD.

Of course this is not earth shattering to you, because you live now, and we know this stuff man. People have looked up in the sky for thousands of years and never knew there is not one the same.. Prove that one?

You say people knew about wind currents right? Great, I agree unless they lived underground. But the Scripture I quoted was not that wind was on earth duh, but that there is actually a pattern to it

Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.


and yet you refuse to see that.. That's blind eye vision (spiritually speaking).

You "prove" science being "correct" by using the scientific method not just assuming it is correct because it is stated in the bible.

Name one scientific method I used, while not quoting a verse? I have the Bible as a reference, and I have quoted it with song and verse. What have you quoted to disprove any of it?? NOTHING!!! That's what...... Opnions only you have.. Show me a fact? Prove to me if I have said anything wrong about Science? Do you deny Science? Because all I have done is quoted Science, but used a book that you refuse to accept!!!!!!!! How Ironic, maybe I should quote Science from 'Teen Magazine' maybe then you will accept that Science huh?

Science is catching up because society was becoming more secular and didn't rely on "God did it" as a reason.

That's the problem, maybe if they did accept God and read His Word, our technology would probably be more advanced but who really knows, you? Me? Kinda of a stupid argument would'nt you agree?? At least we can agree that Science is playing catch up.

Science shows that a global flood didn't happen nor was the Earth created in 7 24 hour days. However, I'm sure you interpret genesis to suit however long 7 days is.

Oh I heard that a thousands times, where is your proof? Either post back with some proof or stop posting under me please, because all you are doing is trying to beat a dead horse.. Show some proof to me at least, something I can rebuttal. Be a man of you Word. Can you be a man on your Word??

I'm curious to what the scripture says so post it.

How did I know you would ask for that, here is another Scripture to prove you're wrong.. What next gonna refuse this one also???????

Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The word translated “circle†here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,†or “compass†and that it indicates something spherical, rounded, or archedâ€â€not something that is flat or square.

Please before you respond back, do some research on the word chuwg of the word circle, so you can come and make a good rebuttal?

 

[blunthitta4life]

That's the problem, maybe if they did accept God and read His Word, our technology would probably be more advanced but who really knows, you? Me? Kinda of a stupid argument would'nt you agree?? At least we can agree that Science is playing catch up.

Really? So religion hasn't hindered science at all? I guess science just had to wait for the right time to bloom... like after years of bloody religious wars between Protestants and Catholics.

You say people knew about wind currents right? Great, I agree unless they lived underground. But the Scripture I quoted was not that wind was on earth duh, but that there is actually a pattern to it

Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.


and yet you refuse to see that.. That's blind eye vision (spiritually speaking).

Once again... how was this a concept not known to sailers? So because the bible mentions a circuit of wind currents, it discovered it? So before the Bible
no one understood wind currents?

Name one scientific method I used, while not quoting a verse? I have the Bible as a reference, and I have quoted it with song and verse. What have you quoted to disprove any of it?? NOTHING!!! That's what...... Opnions only you have.. Show me a fact? Prove to me if I have said anything wrong about Science? Do you deny Science? Because all I have done is quoted Science, but used a book that you refuse to accept!!!!!!!! How Ironic, maybe I should quote Science from 'Teen Magazine' maybe then you will accept that Science huh?

So you assume the Bible is correct because it says so? The bible is correct because the passages you interpret go along with your sense of what the bible should be? Why should I trust your interpretations? They are only your opinions too.

So you assume that because the Bible has made some correct observations about nature it is all knowing?

Big deal...

The Mayans were just as advanced without any contact to anything biblical. What does that say?

Oh I heard that a thousands times, where is your proof? Either post back with some proof or stop posting under me please, because all you are doing is trying to beat a dead horse.. Show some proof to me at least, something I can rebuttal. Be a man of you Word. Can you be a man on your Word??

Because in order to "prove" something it has to stand up to scrutiny of peer review. Guess what, the reason why global flood hasn't stood up to peer review is because the evidence is against it. Once a geolgist comes up with some substanial evidence for it a global flood then it can be reexamined.

How did I know you would ask for that, here is another Scripture to prove you're wrong.. What next gonna refuse this one also???????

Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The word translated “circle†here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,†or “compass†and that it indicates something spherical, rounded, or archedâ€â€not something that is flat or square.

Please before you respond back, do some research on the word chuwg of the word circle, so you can come and make a good rebuttal?

When reading that scripture it seems like it is painting a picture of God sitting up in heaven looking down at the Earth. So according to the scripture God sits up above the "circle" of Earth. Now should I interpret that as God literally sitting above the circle or is he metaphorically sitting above the "circle" of Earth?

 

[Atonement]

Exactly what I expected, another post by you with no evidence to prove me wrong. Because to prove me wrong, you would in return be proving Science wrong. Do you see where this topic is going?? Or is that blunt still in the membrane.. You just refuse to accept the Bible, that Science is in fact written in the Bible yet if I quoted to you from a no name source you would probably agree with out actually studding it. That is a ignorant person through and through.

 

[Barbarian]

You say people knew about wind currents right? Great, I agree unless they lived underground. But the Scripture I quoted was not that wind was on earth duh, but that there is actually a pattern to it

Precivilized people were a lot more in tune with the world than we are. They very early noticed such things as wind patters. The Israelites, being desert nomads, were acutely aware of how it worked, since survival of their flocks often depended on knowing this.

 

[blunthitta4life]

You have been conveniately ignoring my quesions from earlier post.

Exactly what I expected, another post by you with no evidence to prove me wrong. Because to prove me wrong, you would in return be proving Science wrong. Do you see where this topic is going?? Or is that blunt still in the membrane.. You just refuse to accept the Bible, that Science is in fact written in the Bible yet if I quoted to you from a no name source you would probably agree with out actually studding it. That is a ignorant person through and through.

You obviously don't know what science is:

Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of objective knowledge. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So now that you know what science is... lets apply it to your scripture. ]

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

What is being observed here? What is being hypothesized? What is being concluded? Is there an part of this hypothesis that can be reproducable?

Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name): “If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever.â€Â

What is being observed here? What is being hypothesized? What is being concluded? Is there an part of this hypothesis that can be reproducable?

Here I want you to answer this question of mine.

Here's what you said:

Quote:
How did I know you would ask for that, here is another Scripture to prove you're wrong.. What next gonna refuse this one also???????

Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The word translated “circle†here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,†or “compass†and that it indicates something spherical, rounded, or archedâ€â€not something that is flat or square.

Please before you respond back, do some research on the word chuwg of the word circle, so you can come and make a good rebuttal?

Here's my question:

When reading that scripture it seems like it is painting a picture of God sitting up in heaven looking down at the Earth. So according to the scripture God sits up above the "circle" of Earth. Now should I interpret that as God literally sitting above the circle or is he metaphorically sitting above the "circle" of Earth?

 

[Atonement]

Precivilized people were a lot more in tune with the world than we are. They very early noticed such things as wind patters. The Israelites, being desert nomads, were acutely aware of how it worked, since survival of their flocks often depended on knowing this.

And you know this how?? Am I to take your word for it? What source did you read this from? The Sunday Journal funnies?

Tell me then, Job being the oldest book in the Bible, before there were Israelites, because they were not called that until the time of Moses. Before that they were called the Hebrews. Tell me what great knowledge you speak on the land of Israel before Moses' time? I mean you already messed up calling them the 'Israelites' so now I'm to trust anything you have to say about this time, and this country? Use a reference next time... Please...

 

[Atonement]

You have been conveniately ignoring my quesions from earlier post.

Please forgive me, I have a tendency to ignore ignorance. I think you mean "conveniently" and also "questions" right?

You obviously don't know what science is

I think that is the brightest thing you have said on this thread, and yet it still does not make sense. Go figure

science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

LOL sounds like a cut and paste from an Traditional Ecological site.

Isn't it great!! I quoted just a few verses from Job and it proves what man has been researching for hundreds years while trying to use 'scientific methods' yet it was spelled out thousands of years ago in a book called the Bible..
Still you have not proven a single thing wrong LOL... TRY??? Prove Science wrong, because that is what you will be doing my friend, proving Science wrong by proving the Bible wrong. It's a catch 22, and you have not begun to even see that.

What is being observed here? What is being hypothesized? What is being concluded? Is there an part of this hypothesis that can be reproducable?

observed: Earth hanging on nothing
hypothesized: That man is fallible and God is almighty and infallible
concluded: With all the wisdom known to man, still some things are beyond our intelligence.
reproducable?? Do you mean reproducible??
If you did, then probably not in our life time

Here I want you to answer this question of mine.

Sorry I don't take orders, secondly, I have a whole thread of questions and you have not answered neither of them, but have only done one of two things..

1) Question them
2) Share opinions with no references

Both of these do not constitute as answering my threads questions. My question since you posted under me was very simple and clear.. PROVE the Science in the Bible WRONG. You CAN'T, Because you will prove Science wrong.
I will say this in reference to your quote below:

When reading that scripture it seems like it is painting a picture of God sitting up in heaven looking down at the Earth. So according to the scripture God sits up above the "circle" of Earth. Now should I interpret that as God literally sitting above the circle or is he metaphorically sitting above the "circle" of Earth?

In answering that question, how does that relate to the Science from the quoted Scripture about the Earth being round?

Wow I mean I would hate to quote the verse to you about Jesus using the world as His footstool. I would hate to see what image or painting you could come up with..

 

[blunthitta4life]

Quote:
You have been conveniately ignoring my quesions from earlier post.


Please forgive me, I have a tendency to ignore ignorance. I think you mean "conveniently" and also "questions" right?

Quote:
You obviously don't know what science is


I think that is the brightest thing you have said on this thread, and yet it still does not make sense. Go figure

Quote:
science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.


LOL sounds like a cut and paste from an Traditional Ecological site.

Isn't it great!! I quoted just a few verses from Job and it proves what man has been researching for hundreds years while trying to use 'scientific methods' yet it was spelled out thousands of years ago in a book called the Bible..
Still you have not proven a single thing wrong LOL... TRY??? Prove Science wrong, because that is what you will be doing my friend, proving Science wrong by proving the Bible wrong. It's a catch 22, and you have not begun to even see that.

Look Atonement it is pretty sad that you are a moderator and yet you debate like a child. When debating it usually isn't too mature to talk in such a condescending tone.

observed: Earth hanging on nothing
hypothesized: That man is fallible and God is almighty and infallible
concluded: With all the wisdom known to man, still some things are beyond our intelligence.
reproducable?? Do you mean reproducible??
If you did, then probably not in our life time

Well this about sums up why the scripture isn't science. Just give up man. The writers made observations about nature that weren't proven scientificailly until Francis Bacon's scientific method. This is the second time I've told you that modern science didn't start until the early 1600s. This is the second time I'm posting a link to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon
Not reproducible= not science

Sorry I don't take orders, secondly, I have a whole thread of questions and you have not answered neither of them, but have only done one of two things..

1) Question them
2) Share opinions with no references

Both of these do not constitute as answering my threads questions. My question since you posted under me was very simple and clear.. PROVE the Science in the Bible WRONG. You CAN'T, Because you will prove Science wrong.
I will say this in reference to your quote below:

Why would I need to prove science wrong? I just showed you don't know what science is and why your statements are incorrect. You would be correct in saying that the bible does make some correct observations about nature.

 

[blunthitta4life]

Quote:
You have been conveniately ignoring my quesions from earlier post.


Please forgive me, I have a tendency to ignore ignorance. I think you mean "conveniently" and also "questions" right?

Quote:
You obviously don't know what science is


I think that is the brightest thing you have said on this thread, and yet it still does not make sense. Go figure

Quote:
science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.


LOL sounds like a cut and paste from an Traditional Ecological site.

Isn't it great!! I quoted just a few verses from Job and it proves what man has been researching for hundreds years while trying to use 'scientific methods' yet it was spelled out thousands of years ago in a book called the Bible..
Still you have not proven a single thing wrong LOL... TRY??? Prove Science wrong, because that is what you will be doing my friend, proving Science wrong by proving the Bible wrong. It's a catch 22, and you have not begun to even see that.

Look Atonement it is pretty sad that you are a moderator and yet you debate like a child. When debating it usually isn't too mature to talk in such a condescending tone.

observed: Earth hanging on nothing
hypothesized: That man is fallible and God is almighty and infallible
concluded: With all the wisdom known to man, still some things are beyond our intelligence.
reproducable?? Do you mean reproducible??
If you did, then probably not in our life time

Well this about sums up why the scripture isn't science. Just give up man. The writers made observations about nature that weren't proven scientifically until Francis Bacon's scientific method. I just want to emphasize that modern science didn't start until the early 1600s when Bacon's scientific method was theorized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon
Not reproducible= not science.

Sorry I don't take orders, secondly, I have a whole thread of questions and you have not answered neither of them, but have only done one of two things..

1) Question them
2) Share opinions with no references

Both of these do not constitute as answering my threads questions. My question since you posted under me was very simple and clear.. PROVE the Science in the Bible WRONG. You CAN'T, Because you will prove Science wrong.
I will say this in reference to your quote below:

Why would I need to prove science wrong? I just showed you don't know what science is and why your statements are incorrect. You would be correct in saying that the bible does make some correct observations about nature.

 

[Atonement]

Look Atonement it is pretty sad that you are a moderator and yet you debate like a child. When debating it usually isn't too mature to talk in such a condescending tone.

Why I'm only debating you at your own style, don't like it do you?? Neither do I like how you have debated my thread. But have you cared about that? Nope not until I started to cut deep, and I'm still holding back because I am a Mod.. If you would like us to start over, then start over.

Well this about sums up why the scripture isn't science. Just give up man. The writers made observations about nature that weren't proven scientificailly until Francis Bacon's scientific method. This is the second time I've told you that modern science didn't start until the early 1600s. This is the second time I'm posting a link to this.

Give up.. I don't give up on anything, specially when it's the truth. You know something Blunt this is the 2nd time I'm telling you that Science is playing catch up. You asked me what my opinion was, I gave it. I read your site, I've seen that site a few times, Do you have any of your own thoughts, or are you gonna cut and paste from other sites? But thank you for the resource at least, that was cool. But it proves nothing invalid about the Science in the Bible. Should I quote links to you as well? No, I perfer to just use the Word of God and have you try and prove the Science wrong in it. I would start by researching the book of Job, so you can kinda get a hint on the date of this book, then maybe you would understand how this book has things that men just could have not known back then.. Because to you it was not until the 1600's that men starting using scientific methods under Francis Bacon.

Why would I need to prove science wrong? I just showed you don't know what science is and why your statements are incorrect. You would be correct in saying that the bible does make some correct observations about nature.

just showed you don't know what science is and why your statements are incorrect.

LOL are you really that blind and ignorant????????????? Tell me exactly how you proved me incorrect? Oh because you quote from a site about Bacon and scientific methods

Let me quote something for you, and then I'll post the link okay? Is that fair enough? You have proved nothing and nothing about this man Bacon that I should admire..

"In many external respects, the life of Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was similar to that of Sir Thomas More [1478-1535], a century before. Both came from distinguished families, and both received excellent educations. Both studied law and both practised that profession. Both entered public life at a comparatively early age, and both finally arrived, at the end of their political careers, at the Lord Chancellorship. Moreover, each fell into disfavour with his sovereign; each was accused of taking bribes; each was condemned and imprisoned in the Tower. Finally, each was the most distinguished writer and thinker of his time, and each was in a sense, a martyr to his faith. More died because of his steadfast devotion to his religion. Bacon, so the story goes, met his death through devotion to experimental science. While testing the preservation powers of snow, he contracted a chill and perished. This external similarity does not extend, however, to the characters of the two men. More was a man of the utmost integrity, sweetness, and generosity; Bacon was by no means admirable." (p. 207.)

Quote taken from this site:

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Bacon.htm

 

[blunthitta4life]

Why I'm only debating you at your own style, don't like it do you?? Neither do I like how you have debated my thread. But have you cared about that? Nope not until I started to cut deep, and I'm still holding back because I am a Mod.. If you would like us to start over, then start over.

Please indicate where in this thread I pointed out spelling mistakes in order to make you sound unintelligent. If this wasn't your purpose then what was?

So being a Mod gives you the ability to "cut deep"? So you are holding back because you are a Mod? Is this Jesus's love that Christians talk about or the vengenful God that Christians talk about?

Give up.. I don't give up on anything, specially when it's the truth. You know something Blunt this is the 2nd time I'm telling you that Science is playing catch up.

Science is playing catch up to the Bible?

So the Bible supports the Big Bang? Evolution? Or does it only support theories that go along with your interpretation? It certainly doesn't support modern biology, geology, or astronomy. The latter two are based on old age: Earth is about 4 billions years old and the universe is about 14 billion. Neither of which, I believe, you think are true.

Why didn't science flourish during the time of the Bible or sometime shortly after? What was it about the time in between the bible and the enlightenment that didn't allowed science to develop?

You asked me what my opinion was, I gave it. I read your site, I've seen that site a few times, Do you have any of your own thoughts, or are you gonna cut and paste from other sites? But thank you for the resource at least, that was cool. But it proves nothing invalid about the Science in the Bible. Should I quote links to you as well? No, I perfer to just use the Word of God and have you try and prove the Science wrong in it.

And here is why this is pointless. So no matter what evidence I show you, it can't be true because the "word of God" is a straight flush.

 

[blunthitta4life]

Why I'm only debating you at your own style, don't like it do you?? Neither do I like how you have debated my thread. But have you cared about that? Nope not until I started to cut deep, and I'm still holding back because I am a Mod.. If you would like us to start over, then start over.

Please indicate where in this thread I pointed out spelling mistakes in order to make you sound unintelligent. If this wasn't your purpose then what was?

So being a Mod gives you the ability to "cut deep"? So you are holding back because you are a Mod? Is this Jesus's love that Christians talk about or the vengeful God that Christians talk about?

Give up.. I don't give up on anything, specially when it's the truth. You know something Blunt this is the 2nd time I'm telling you that Science is playing catch up.

Science is playing catch up to the Bible?

So the Bible supports the Big Bang? Evolution? Or does it only support theories that go along with your interpretation? It certainly doesn't support modern biology, geology, or astronomy. The latter two are based on old age: Earth is about 4 billions years old and the universe is about 14 billion. Neither of which, I believe, you think are true.

Why didn't science flourish during the time of the Bible or sometime shortly after? What was it about the time in between the bible and the enlightenment that didn't allowed science to develop?

You asked me what my opinion was, I gave it. I read your site, I've seen that site a few times, Do you have any of your own thoughts, or are you gonna cut and paste from other sites? But thank you for the resource at least, that was cool. But it proves nothing invalid about the Science in the Bible. Should I quote links to you as well? No, I perfer to just use the Word of God and have you try and prove the Science wrong in it.

And here is why this is pointless. So no matter what evidence I show you, it can't be true because the "word of God" is a straight flush.

I would start by researching the book of Job, so you can kinda get a hint on the date of this book, then maybe you would understand how this book has things that men just could have not known back then.. Because to you it was not until the 1600's that men starting using scientific methods under Francis Bacon.

Well the scientific method is what all of modern science is based on. You claim that the statements of the bible was later proven. This is correct, as I have stated before. However, those statements were merely observations, nothing more. The bible doesn't make any scientific statements in the modern sense.

I couldn't find the date of the book of job, but according to this Christian site Abraham lived about 2000 BC.
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/ol ... ldtes1.htm
You do realize there were multiple civilizations across Europe, Asia, and Africa during this time. The way you are talking it would seem that you are implying that God gave man science.

LOL are you really that blind and ignorant????????????? Tell me exactly how you proved me incorrect? Oh because you quote from a site about Bacon and scientific methods

Let me quote something for you, and then I'll post the link okay? Is that fair enough? You have proved nothing and nothing about this man Bacon that I should admire..

Quote:
"In many external respects, the life of Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was similar to that of Sir Thomas More [1478-1535], a century before. Both came from distinguished families, and both received excellent educations. Both studied law and both practised that profession. Both entered public life at a comparatively early age, and both finally arrived, at the end of their political careers, at the Lord Chancellorship. Moreover, each fell into disfavour with his sovereign; each was accused of taking bribes; each was condemned and imprisoned in the Tower. Finally, each was the most distinguished writer and thinker of his time, and each was in a sense, a martyr to his faith. More died because of his steadfast devotion to his religion. Bacon, so the story goes, met his death through devotion to experimental science. While testing the preservation powers of snow, he contracted a chill and perished. This external similarity does not extend, however, to the characters of the two men. More was a man of the utmost integrity, sweetness, and generosity; Bacon was by no means admirable." (p. 207.)


Quote taken from this site:

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biogr ... /Bacon.htm

What does this prove? Because Bacon wasn't an admirable man his scientific
method is less important or less respectable?

 

[Atonement]

I'm just gonna touch on one thing you said, because time restricts me today.. Sorry about that Blunt; but you did say..

So the Bible supports the Big Bang?

In order to make an explosion, you must have a positive and a negative charge, This is physics 1 on 1 pretty easy stuff. Well tell me Blunt where did the positive and negative charge come from? In order to make this charge, energy must have already been present. So where did this energy come from?

In 1989 the NASA orbited a satellite named COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) to try to measure irregularities in the "background radiation''. This radiation (also called "three degrees Kelvin cosmic radiation'' or "Big Bang echo'') is nothing but radio waves coming from all directions, and it is known since 1965, when it was first detected with a microwave receiver.

In the same way a detective verifies the identity of a person comparing his fingerprints, the background radiation gives the astronomer data on the primitive history of the universe; specifically on the times were the galaxies began to form. As this irregularities are very small, it was not possible to measure them from Earth because of the atmosphere and the interferences, so the NASA sent a satellite to detect them from space.

We can now ask ourselves what does all this have to do with the Big Bang:

After having elaborated the General Theory of Relativity, Einstein was determined to use it in order to understand what the cosmos were like. His calculations indicated that the universe could not be stable: It should be either expanding or collapsing. As Einstein believed that the universe was stable, he proposed the existence of a force opposed to gravity that would enable the universe to be stable. The physicist and mathematician Alexander Friedmann kept on working in the right direction, accepting the consequences of General Relativity and elaborated, in 1922, models that described the universe in expansion.

The vision of the cosmos we had at the beginning of the XX century was that we were part of a flat system that contained all the stars. In 1924 the astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that certain astronomic objects known as "spiral nebulae'' were in fact other galaxies (in those days they would use the terminology "island universes'') each one formed by thousands of millions of stars located at enormous distances. In the following years he studied their distances and velocities and discovered that the galaxies were getting further from one another: In other words he discovered that the universe was expanding (paradoxically, Friedmann's works were not known in the west until 1935).

Having discovered that the cosmos was expanding, the astronomers asked themselves how this expansion had begun. The same physics that today allows us to understand why stars shine, what the origins of mankind were or why there is no air on the moon indicated that the universe must have had a very hot beginning and that part of that initial heat could still be detected in the microwave band. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected it for the fist time in 1965, discovery that awarded them the Nobel Prize.

So then: Did the cosmos really begin to exist because of a great explosion?

The translations of scientific theories to everyday language are not very trustworthy. To say "everything started with a great explosion'' is not very different from saying "everything came from a big cosmic egg'' or anything of the sort. When we are told such a story we can only believe that it is true or believe that it is false (but we cannot possibly know it). But scientific theories are not true or false, they just fit to the observed phenomenon . Those that do not fit are left out.

Those that do adjust are useful until a discrepant observation is done. In that case, we should elaborate a new theory that fits with the reality and we will have learnt something about the world that surrounds us.

Science is not based on complicated mathematical equations: These are a mere tool. Science is based on the attitude of being ready to change our previous ideas when facts show us that they are not exactly true.

It has also been said that the Big Bang theory has theological connotations. It is true that some have a religious vision of science: Some people "believe'' and others "do not believe'' in Big Bang. Even the church officially proclaimed in 1951 that the Big Bang theory agreed with the Bible!

However, since then, new things have been learnt. The 1951 theory is not like today's. In particular there is not a unique Big Bang theory, the data provided by the COBE was used to select the one that best suits the facts (known as Standard Cosmological Model) and rule out others.

Should we then believe in Big-Bang?

It is true that in 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding.

It is true that in 1965 Penzias and Wilson discovered the background radiation (the "Big Bang echo'').

But to believe that a certain theory, fable or myth is the definitive truth is to refuse to learn anything new about the world around us.




NOTE: I have always used the word "theory'' and never "hypothesis''. The Big Bang is not a hypothesis. The hypothesis in which it is based are:

The same physics applies in any part of the universe.
The universe presents the same aspect as seen from anywhere.
Until now we have used physics with success to understand phenomena that occur on Earth as well as on Saturn, the Sun the stars or the most remote galaxies.

The second hypothesis means that the galaxy to which we belong to does not occupy any "special place'' in the cosmos. It is only speculation, but since we started to observe the sky we have discovered first that the Earth is not in the centre of the universe, then that the Sun is on the edge of a galaxy which is just one more among hundreds of thousands of millions. Perhaps this has taught us to be more humble.

 

[Slevin]

In order to make an explosion, you must have a positive and a negative charge, This is physics 1 on 1 pretty easy stuff. Well tell me Blunt where did the positive and negative charge come from? In order to make this charge, energy must have already been present. So where did this energy come from?

Uh, just so you know, it wasn't an actual explosion.