So-called science has repeatedly erred in making false claims.

[blackbird]

29 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

But please find me any legitimate scientist that has made any claim even resembling     "science is infallible" but we both know you won't 

That's because some scientists are more rational than the science worshipers.  Many great scientists believed in God.  How often have we heard someone say they would believe science over the Bible?  Even yourself says things like that.  You just did.  You say the Bible is fiction which shows you know nothing about it.  Many great scientists in history would disagree with you.  But you know better.

[User]

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am not so sure.  Science is not a god and science is not infallible, but lots of people think it is infallible.  They say science proves evolution is a fact.  But that has been disproven and debunked.  I don't believe science is always correct.

Science is just a methodology comprised of numerous fields of study. 

You neither trust it or not, that is the entire point. You test and observe. Just because one thing in one field went wrong doesn't somehow mean science if flawed. It just means that particular study was. 

 

[blackbird]

11 minutes ago, User said:

You test and observe. Just because one thing in one field went wrong doesn't somehow mean science if flawed. It just means that particular study was. 

There are probably many things in science that are flawed.  The theory of evolution is still taught in schools as if it is fact.  It has been shown to be flawed by many.  The claim of many that man is the cause of global warming is nothing but a big fraud.  The claim of man-made climate change has not been proven by it has been accepted by millions of people as a fact.  

There is true science which is based on the scientific method involving experiment and demonstration of something.  Some things can not be proven because they simply cannot be repeated.  Since the claimed evolution occurred over millions of years, it is impossible to repeat and prove.  Man-made climate change cannot be proven either because of the size and complexity of the earth.  There is no experiment that can simulate that.  It is all built on speculation.  That is not science.

[SkyHigh]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's because some scientists are more rational than the science worshipers.  Many great scientists believed in God.  How often have we heard someone say they would believe science over the Bible?  Even yourself says things like that.  You just did.  You say the Bible is fiction which shows you know nothing about it.  Many great scientists in history would disagree with you.  But you know better.

No one in their right mind would believe the bible over science on anything in which science is relevant. Yes many very intelligent people believe in God (not the same god you pretend to worship) but no geneticist regardless of his religious beliefs thinks we descended from Adam and Eve. 

As for as the idea of a higher being, there are zero conflicts with science, as science does not way in on the supernatural because science deals exclusively with things that can be quantified, measured etc,..

Reasonable, well read, Christians have no need to deny science, unfortunately you are not reasonable, well read (you literally told me you have never read a book by a qualified scientist on the theory of evolution, in fact claimed that there was no such thing) or a Christian 

[French Patriot]

On 8/15/2024 at 6:45 PM, DUI_Offender said:

User is "special."

I might be recognized for my apotheosis some day. Time will tell.

Most do not care about or believe in such things, even the believers.

[French Patriot]

On 8/16/2024 at 4:03 PM, SkyHigh said:

But that has been disproven and debunked.

You get the Gold for your full blown lie.

 

[SkyHigh]

2 hours ago, French Patriot said:

You get the Gold for your full blown lie.

 

You quoted the wrong person.

Guess you get the Gold for illiteracy 

[herbie]

Hey, it's the fault of this forum's software, if you quote something from within a reply to a post, it changes the name to the replier's. Dunnit too often myself.
You have to check and edit the person's name before you click Submit.

Other forum softwares don't do that. They have other annoying glitches.

[blackbird]

On 8/16/2024 at 1:03 PM, SkyHigh said:

That is why science is an exponentially better way to truth, than the fictional book(or books) you pretend guide you. Why? Because science can and has changed, it's why we know the earth is spherical and not a flat surface covered by a firmament, like the bible says 

quote

In attempts to discredit the reliability of the Bible, many skeptics claim that the Bible depicts a flat earth. Further, there are more than a few Christians who believe the Bible teaches the earth is flat. Even further, there are some people who simply question the scientific consensus and the seemingly overwhelming scientific evidence and/or see some sort of conspiracy to deceive humanity that the earth is spherical when it is, in fact, flat.


Regarding the biblical evidence, references such as Revelation 7:1 are cited, which speaks of “four angels standing at the four corners of the earth.” Some also point to Psalm 75:3, which says God holds “the pillars” of the earth firm. Other passages they claim teach a flat earth are Deuteronomy 13:7; Job 28:24; Psalm 48:10; and Proverbs 30:4; all of which reference the “ends” of the earth. So, are they correct? Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat?

The truth is, the Bible does not comment on the shape of Planet Earth. It does not say that the earth is flat, and it does not say that it is spherical. Let’s take a closer look at some of the commonly cited passages that supposedly depict a flat earth:

Revelation 7:1 says, “I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth.” In writing this, the apostle John was using idiomatic language—the “four corners of the earth” refer to “every distant location.” We use the same idiom today; for example, when we speak of Olympic athletes coming from the four corners of the earth to compete in the games, we mean they are coming from all over the world.

The book of Revelation is full of non-literal descriptions and symbolic language. To press Revelation 7:1 into a hyper-literal interpretation makes no sense. John simply says that, at one point during the tribulation, God will cause all wind to stop blowing. The “four corners” encompass the cardinal directions—north, south, east, and west. All wind will cease at God’s command.

Psalm 75:3 quotes God saying, “When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.” Other passages also refer to the earth’s “pillars,” such as 1 Samuel 2:8, but in no case should the language be taken literally. The book of Psalms and Hannah’s song in 1 Samuel 2 are poetry. The writers liken the founding of the earth to the constructing of a house, and their descriptions are comparative (i.e., metaphorical), not literal. The point is not that the earth is flat but that the earth belongs to God; it is His construction, and He guarantees its stability. God’s “pillars” will not move, and His “roof” will not cave in. Even when the moral order of the world seems to have crumbled and people are overcome with fear, God will not fully withdraw His sustaining power.

What about the Bible’s references to the “ends of the earth” in Deuteronomy 13:7; Job 28:24; Psalm 48:10; Proverbs 30:4; and other passages? Does a reference to the “ends” of the earth teach that the earth has an edge and is therefore flat? We’ll take Deuteronomy 13:7 as representative of all the passages: here, Moses warns the people of " 7  Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;"  KJV

A couple things can be said about the phrase the ends of the earth to show that it does not refer to a flat earth. First, that phrase, like the four corners of the earth, is idiomatic. We don’t expect people to take us literally when we speak of going “back to the drawing board”; neither should we force a literal interpretation on “the ends of the earth.” When biblical writers speak of the “ends of the earth” (28 times in the KJV), they are simply referring to “the farthest reaches of the inhabited world.”

Second, the phrase the ends of the earth at times refers to people, not to land. For example, Psalm 67:7 says, “May God bless us still, so that all the ends of the earth will fear him.” In this verse, the ends of the earth references the people who inhabit remote and distant places (see also Psalm 98:3 and Isaiah 45:22). Obviously, in this context the phrase is metaphorical and cannot be used to depict the earth as having a physical edge. The same phrase, used elsewhere, should also be considered figurative.

The Bible does not teach that the earth is flat. The references to the “earth” in the Bible are often not references to planetary earth but to a portion of dry land bound by water. For example, Genesis 1:10 says, "10  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good." KJV  . “Earth” is mentioned as distinct from “Seas” and cannot refer to Earth as a planet; the same Hebrew word for “Earth” is used in Deuteronomy 13:7 and the other passages listed above.

While the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat, neither does the Bible explicitly teach that the earth is spherical. Some passages do allow for a spherical earth, such as Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22. And Job 26:10 makes reference to God’s drawing. "10  He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." KJV, a description suggesting two hemispheres. In any event, the Bible is far from affirming a naïve or unscientific understanding of the earth and the solar system. There is simply no basis for the charge that the Bible teaches a flat earth. Biblical passages that could be interpreted to present a flat earth are better understood symbolically.   unquote

Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat? | GotQuestions.org

There are some things in the Bible that are meant to be taken metaphorically, not literally.  The Bible does not attempt to define the shape of the earth.  It is not meant to be a science book.  That means your claim that the Bible states the earth is flat is a nonsensical false statement.  The reason you so loosely make statements like that is because you know nothing about the Bible and are simply grasping for straws to try to discredit it.  Again it is not claiming to be a science book.  It is a book about the supernatural which is something that cannot be analyzed from a science point of view.  One either believes in the supernatural or they don't.  There is a material universe and a supernatural realm apart from the material universe which God created.

Edited August 19 by blackbird

[SkyHigh]

22 hours ago, blackbird said:

There are some things in the Bible that are meant to be taken metaphorically, not literally. 

Exactly, now your getting in. Almost all biblical scholars regardless of religious beliefs consider Genesis to be metaphorical and not litteral, because science has demonstrated that none of what's written can be backed by any evidence. That also includes Noah, oh and same thing for Exodus since we're on the topic.

 

[User]

21 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Almost all biblical scholars regardless of religious beliefs consider Genesis to be metaphorical and not litteral

What do you base this claim on?

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, User said:

What do you base this claim on?

The writings of nearly every legitimate biblical scholar, it's not "my" opinion, it's the opinion of the experts in the field.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Exactly, now your getting in. Almost all biblical scholars regardless of religious beliefs consider Genesis to be metaphorical and not litteral, because science has demonstrated that none of what's written can be backed by any evidence. That also includes Noah, oh and same thing for Exodus since we're on the topic.

 

When I said some things are to be taken metaphorically, I did not mean Genesis is metaphorical.  It is meant to be taken literally.

The Bible is a book about God.  God is a spirit.  We are talking about the supernatural.  Science is about the material universe.  I don't disagree with all science.  Some things are proven, some are not.

The beginning of Genesis is about how God created the universe in six days.  That is literal.  One accepts that by faith.

You either believe it or you don't.  You obviously don't.  Science is about the observable.  Obviously nobody was around to observe creation.  Nobody was around to observe evolution or the big bang.  You accept that on faith   I accept the Bible on faith.  It is pointless to argue back and forth over it.

You have stated you don't believe the Bible.  So why keep repeating the same old over and over?

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Exactly, now your getting in. Almost all biblical scholars regardless of religious beliefs consider Genesis to be metaphorical and not litteral, because science has demonstrated that none of what's written can be backed by any evidence. That also includes Noah, oh and same thing for Exodus since we're on the topic.

 

I never said that.  You twisted it to suit yourself.   The Bible is accepted and believed on faith.  Science is about the material world.  The Bible is about the supernatural.  Pointless to argue over that.

Edited August 20 by blackbird

[User]

52 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

The writings of nearly every legitimate biblical scholar, it's not "my" opinion, it's the opinion of the experts in the field.

Again, what do you base this claim on? Do you have some kind of poll or something that shows "every legitimate" biblical scholar thinks this?

[SkyHigh]

43 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I never said that.  You twisted it to suit yourself.   The Bible is accepted and believed on faith.  Science is about the material world.  The Bible is about the supernatural.  Pointless to argue over that.

I'm not arguing I agree and we don't need the supernatural to explain the natural world ie. science.

Rational (which is the strong majority) religious people understand that and are able to separate the two because they tackle completely different issues. You on the other hand are not a rational person and talk out of both sides of your mouth. You deny the science that contradicts your version of one particular religion while accepting other science that in reality intercepts directly with what you claim is false.

I'll add this just because I think it important. Many atheists and non believers (even putting aside other faiths because I'm speaking to someone who claims to follow Yahweh) still believe in the supernatural, so your argument isn't even specific to religion 

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I'm not arguing I agree and we don't need the supernatural to explain the natural world ie. science.

Rational (which is the strong majority) religious people understand that and are able to separate the two because they tackle completely different issues. You on the other hand are not a rational person and talk out of both sides of your mouth. You deny the science that contradicts your version of one particular religion while accepting other science that in reality intercepts directly with what you claim is false.

I'll add this just because I think it important. Many atheists and non believers (even putting aside other faiths because I'm speaking to someone who claims to follow Yahweh) still believe in the supernatural, so your argument isn't even specific to religion 

Not sure what your point it.  One either believe the Bible and takes it literally where it is meant to be taken literally or they don't.  Many churches have fallen away from the Bible.  That is just the way the world is.  It doesn't prove the Bible is false.  It just proves many people are deceived like yourself.  We get your point.  You don't believe in God or the supernatural. 

[SkyHigh]

39 minutes ago, User said:

Again, what do you base this claim on? Do you have some kind of poll or something that shows "every legitimate" biblical scholar thinks this?

Again not my claim.

Read the literature 

[User]

2 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Again not my claim.

Read the literature 

Yes, you are the one here asserting what all of these biblical scholars say... where did you get that from? What literature did you read?

[SkyHigh]

2 hours ago, User said:

Yes, you are the one here asserting what all of these biblical scholars say... where did you get that from? What literature did you read?

That's like asking me what literature I've read to know gravity is why things fall.

It will be easy to find, hell (pun intended type Genesis creation story into Wikipedia or Google scholar, I'm sure you can get enough from the links they provide 

We're not even talking about just the clear scientific flaws but the literary aspects (style) is a of how the text was written.

Conversely the Gospels WERE written as historical documents, again not my opinion that of those educated in the field 

Edited August 20 by SkyHigh

[SkyHigh]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Not sure what your point it.  One either believe the Bible and takes it literally where it is meant to be taken literally or they don't.  Many churches have fallen away from the Bible.  That is just the way the world is.  It doesn't prove the Bible is false.  It just proves many people are deceived like yourself.  We get your point.  You don't believe in God or the supernatural. 

How do you discern when it's supposed to be taken literally and when it's not?

What is your mechanism 

[User]

22 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

That's like asking me what literature I've read to know gravity is why things fall.

No, it really isn't at all. I am not asking you to show me what proof you have that Genesis is metaphorical, I am asking you to explain where you get this statement from:

"Almost all biblical scholars regardless of religious beliefs consider Genesis to be metaphorical and not literal"

Where do you get such information about what "almost all" biblical scholars believe that you can make this assertion about them?

 

[SkyHigh]

1 minute ago, User said:

No, it really isn't at all. I am not asking you to show me what proof you have that Genesis is metaphorical, I am asking you to explain where you get this statement from:

"Almost all biblical scholars regardless of religious beliefs consider Genesis to be metaphorical and not literal"

Where do you get such information about what "almost all" biblical scholars believe that you can make this assertion about them?

 

It's irrelevant, look for yourself. I may be completely wrong but don't take my word either way , go and read what they write and not just websites like answers in geneisis or creation.com

What I'm saying is not at all controversial, mostly because believing in evolution in NO WAY diminishes ones faith 

[blackbird]

28 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

How do you discern when it's supposed to be taken literally and when it's not?

What is your mechanism 

The mechanism is the Bible itself.  We take it literally unless there is a clear reason such as a phrase that is clearly not meant to be literal such as when one says it's raining cats and dogs. 

 

 

[blackbird]

11 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

What I'm saying is not at all controversial, mostly because believing in evolution in NO WAY diminishes ones faith 

The creation account in Genesis is meant to be taken literally.  It is a statement of fact of how God created the universe.

If one doesn't take that literally why should that person take anything else in the Bible literally?  The Bible is full of miracles.

Edited August 21 by blackbird