The Bible's Scientific Credibility

[Captain Seafort]

Based on tectonic plate movements, it is likely that the Earth around 6000 years ago had mountains half as high and the oceans weren't nearly as deep.

Source?

Also, there were no polar ice caps, no ice at all.

Wrong. Ice cores exist going back well before the estimated time of the alleged flood 6000 years ago (as do tree rings - this one, for example).

Most of the water was in the form of a vaporous cloud that covered the entire Earth.

In which case a flood would have been the least of Noah's problems - massive global cooling would have produced a mass extinction event on its own (a mass extinction even that, incidentally, there's no evidence of whatsoever, driving another nail into the flood's coffin).

There is more than enough water to have covered the land.

No there isn't, not even close

And how with evolution would sexual reproduction begin in the first place?

I don't know - how is this at all relevant?

[stitch626]

I won't be on much today, so I'll continue this when I have time (not sure when that will be).
And I thought I'd have more time during the summer.

[Mikey]

How many times I've said this since joining, I don't even know. But here it is: Scripture should be interpreted as truth - an ethos for those who choose to believe - rather than fact.

However, if you choose to disregard that point, then I submit this: arguing over whether the events of Scripture are "provable" or even make sense scientifically means that you're reading the wrong book. Scripture is based on - and a basis of - faith, as Kendall said. If you choose not to have faith in the background of what the Bibnle purports, then it can never make sense to you. If you do choose to have faith, then looking for or providing any sort of empirical evidence for it defeats the whole point.

In other words, for the non-believers: Why continue to even look at or consider the Bible?
For the believers: Why debate the "provability" or scientific logic of something that by definition you take on faith?

[stitch626]

Due to time limits today, I'll say one thing. Yes, much of the Bible requires faith. But so does science. Unless you physically test every single experiment and scientific "fact" yourself, you can only have faith that what everyone else says is correct.

[Sionnach Glic]

No, we do not have to take matters of science on faith. These things are tested, numerous times, by various different people. It's called being peer-reviewed.

[Mikey]

My point is that there is no good reason to look for scientific credibility in Scripture. You won't find it; and if you're a believer, you don't need it. If you're a non-believer, then what do you want to prove? GK, Kendall, and whoever else: you can show me all the scientific evidence against the Bible that you want, but you won't "convert" me to atheism; further, I don't think there's any good reason to want to!

[stitch626]

Hmm, Pluto's a planet, no wait just a moon that feel from its orbit, no wait its a dwarf planet...

Every scientific "fact" changes over time. In the 1300's, it was a fact that the Earth was flat.
Facts is just faith in a bigger package.

[Sionnach Glic]

Hmm, Pluto's a planet, no wait just a moon that feel from its orbit, no wait its a dwarf planet...

Yes, and?
Changing the clasification of something isn't a big deal. It happens all the time. That doesn't mean I need to take it on faith that there's a planet-shaped object named Pluto that's X miles in diameter and orbits the sun once every X years.

Every scientific "fact" changes over time. In the 1300's, it was a fact that the Earth was flat.

Actualy, no. Sailors had known for a long time that the Earth curved, due simply to the horizon. Hell, even the Ancient Greeks guestimated the diameter of the Earth with surprising accuracy due to knowing that the Earth curved.

Facts is just faith in a bigger package

Yeah, BS. Facts, by their very definition, are things that can be checked and verified to be true. Faith is just blindly assuming it is so.
Fact: Object Y exists because we can measure its mass.
Faith: Object Y exists because we believe so.

You may notice a bit of a difference there.

[stitch626]

Actualy, no. Sailors had known for a long time that the Earth curved, due simply to the horizon. Hell, even the Ancient Greeks guestimated the diameter of the Earth with surprising accuracy due to knowing that the Earth curved.

Yes the Greeks knew the shape of the Earth (so did the Hebrews hundreds of years before that). But when the Dark Ages came around, everyone got stupid (mild oversimplification). For them, it was a fact that the Earth was flat.


As for facts changing, ever heard of the Brontosaurus. It was a fact until palientologists realized they had combined two skeletons.
And what about Newtonian Physics. Everyone believed that was all there was until someone found more.
And until recently, it was a fact that we lived in one universe (as opposed to the multiverse theories that have come up).

And then there's things that can't be tested, such as theories to the development of the universe (which, even when it comes to science, must be taken on faith as there is no way to concretely test them).

With all science, you have faith that what everyone else tells you is accurate. Until you test it yourself, there is no solid way to know that it is true.

[Sionnach Glic]

Yes the Greeks knew the shape of the Earth (so did the Hebrews hundreds of years before that). But when the Dark Ages came around, everyone got stupid (mild oversimplification). For them, it was a fact that the Earth was flat.

For the average peasant it was flat. For sailors and learned men, it was still round. How did they know that? Because they could see things dissapearing and re-apearing over the horizon.

Also, given the fact that A) the average person back then had no access to scientific reports and B) science was pretty much non-existant back then, it's a rather poor idea to use that era as proof that the scientific method is based on science.

As for facts changing, ever heard of the Brontosaurus. It was a fact until palientologists realized they had combined two skeletons.
And what about Newtonian Physics. Everyone believed that was all there was until someone found more.
And until recently, it was a fact that we lived in one universe (as opposed to the multiverse theories that have come up).

The first instance was an example of someone making a mistake which was then corrected by scientists who examined it. If anything, that proves my point that peer-reviewing weeds out such mistakes.
The second instance was an expansion on the original material. Whoop-de-doo. We find new stuff all the time, due to humans not being omniscient.
The third one is also an expansion on original thought. Nothing was changed, but instead added. Again, that happens all the time. It's called progress.

And then there's things that can't be tested, such as theories to the development of the universe (which, even when it comes to science, must be taken on faith as there is no way to concretely test them).

No, we can't test them. But we can observe evidence for it. That's called logic.

With all science, you have faith that what everyone else tells you is accurate. Until you test it yourself, there is no solid way to know that it is true

Are you done tossing semantics around yet?

[Captain Seafort]

For them, it was a fact that the Earth was flat.

Wrong: it was a belief. It was never a fact because a) it was wrong and more importantly b) it had never been tested and shown to be accurate

As for facts changing, ever heard of the Brontosaurus. It was a fact until palientologists realized they had combined two skeletons.

The "fact" in that case was that they had two partial skeletons, believed to be of different animals. Closer analysis showed that they were actually the same species.

And what about Newtonian Physics. Everyone believed that was all there was until someone found more.

And? Newtonian physics have been tested and shown to be correct, they're simply imprecise under certain conditions.

And until recently, it was a fact that we lived in one universe (as opposed to the multiverse theories that have come up).

It still is a fact that we live in a single universe - the additional fact that there are additional universes doesn't change that.

And then there's things that can't be tested, such as theories to the development of the universe (which, even when it comes to science, must be taken on faith as there is no way to concretely test them).

Wrong. We have red-shift and background radiation to test such theories. If something can't be tested then it isn't a theory.

With all science, you have faith that what everyone else tells you is accurate.

Again, wrong. We have the evidence of repeatable experiments.

[Graham Kennedy]

In other words, for the non-believers: Why continue to even look at or consider the Bible?
For the believers: Why debate the "provability" or scientific logic of something that by definition you take on faith?

No, I disagree. ASPECTS of it can certainly be treated that way. However, the bible and other such books DO make specific, actual claims about the real world.

Do you want to take on faith that belief in christ can get you into heaven? Okay, fair enough. Science has nothing to say on that issue.

Do you want to believe that a global flood covered the Earth a few millennia ago? To do so as a matter of faith is no different whatever from believing that the Earth is flat as a matter of faith - by which I mean it can be done, but only in absolute defiance of the evidence.

There's a crucial difference between the two. One is assuming an answer in a field science cannot even speculate against. One is assuming that everything we DO know from science is wrong.

And whether you like it or not, a great many religious people DO assert and believe that god does interfere in the natural world in measurable ways and that science confirms this. And I take issue with that.

[Graham Kennedy]

Based on tectonic plate movements, it is likely that the Earth around 6000 years ago had mountains half as high and the oceans weren't nearly as deep.

And even if that were true - and I'd like to see sources - and it resulted in a TENFOLD reduction in the depth of water required, it would still need 3 feet of rain an hour. Do you even have an idea of how much rain that is? It would mean that more than a ton of water was falling on the Ark itself per second. The boat would sink under it.

Also, there were no polar ice caps, no ice at all.

Please prove this scientifically.

Most of the water was in the form of a vaporous cloud that covered the entire Earth.

Please prove this scientifically.

There is more than enough water to have covered the land.

Nope. Not even remotely close.

And how with evolution would sexual reproduction begin in the first place? By your logic it would require a large number of creatures to all at the same time form sexual organs and be compatible both genetically and physically.

What has this got to do with the question I asked? The bible is asserting that the breeding population of every species alive was 2 or 7 animals per species. Is that or is that not a viable population?

Yes the Greeks knew the shape of the Earth (so did the Hebrews hundreds of years before that). But when the Dark Ages came around, everyone got stupid (mild oversimplification). For them, it was a fact that the Earth was flat.

No doubt there were those who believed this in the middle ages. But educated people did not. That the world is round has been known to humans for at least two thousand years. For instance Columbus absolutely did NOT prove that the world was round to anybody, because he, his men, his backers and all other interested parties already knew it. Their only argument was about how large it was (and interestingly, Columbus was dead wrong about that.)

As for facts changing, ever heard of the Brontosaurus. It was a fact until palientologists realized they had combined two skeletons.
And what about Newtonian Physics. Everyone believed that was all there was until someone found more.
And until recently, it was a fact that we lived in one universe (as opposed to the multiverse theories that have come up).

You are confusing facts with the hypotheses and theories which are used to explain those facts.

With all science, you have faith that what everyone else tells you is accurate. Until you test it yourself, there is no solid way to know that it is true.

Actually the defining difference between science and religion is that science CAN be tested by anybody, at least in theory. It may be that most don't, because there's a lot to test and we only get one lifetime each, along with other practical things. But everything in science CAN be tested, and everything in science HAS been tested, by many different independent people.

With religion... not so much.

[stitch626]

While I stand by my assertion that science is a type of faith, I'll concede my points.


Yay, I'm not Blackstar.

[Captain Seafort]

While I stand by my assertion that science is a type of faith, I'll concede my points.

Read that statement again, and come back to me once you've figured out how stupid it is.