Scientific Facts In The Bible

UxoriousMagnus

Gryphon66

UxoriousMagnus

Rodinus

UxoriousMagnus

boncho

I'm going to stop here because there's too much information to cover in one post, and i don't want to "bore you" with scientific facts; that were written about, thousands of years ago.

Weird. I didn't see any of those.

Trying to prove christianity with science one day, trying to say science is all garbage the next. I just don't get the deal with christians. Science shouldn't threaten their position, but they are either trying to usurp it for their own means or claim it has no merit, for their own means…

so not true....I think Christians are just as interested in science as non-CHristians....but you are right....we do look for God in the science. So what? We believe in Him....why wouldn't we look for Him in science?

Religion is just a "WORD" invented by a couple of bored people around a camp fire one evening after a little too much mead or whatever substance they were smoking or snorting up their nostrils at the time (IMO)...

That simple 8 letter word has done SOOOO much damage to this planet and to the human mentality...

Science is the evolution of our species... full stop.

Kindest respects

Rodinus

not how the human brain works....can't sit around and come up with something completely new....like the idea of an all powerful God that created everything.

What? WHAT? Humans don't come up with something completely new? According to who what where or when? I look around at our technology, medicine, and general lifestyle ... and can only think that has to be one of the most out-of-touch-with-reality statements I've ever read.

Head of brain research at MIT .. Dr. Natapoff..... humans can't have come up with the idea of a God because our brains are not wired to conceive of completely new ideas. Our brains are wired to make better mouse traps.

Example: see a rock roll down the hill.....come up with the wheel. See a bird fly....come up with an airplane. See lightning bolts....come up with electricity. Once someone makes the jump from nature to "man-made"....then it keeps snow balling.

prove him wrong....I tried for years and couldn't come up with something that wasn't derived from something else and eventually comes back to nature.

Early superstitious people believe tornado where demons/angry spirits. Did a god come and tell them tornado where demons? Or did they just build a story for something they had no understanding of? Before we had these personal gods like the one found in the bible, people where worshiping the sun. They saw a big glowing thing in the sky, that they didn't understand, but it seemed pretty important to them, and they built stories around it. The sun never spoke to them, and your idea of god didn't exist at the time. People where building stories before ideas of your god existed.

reply to post by pleasethink


They do kind of lean towards the same things I am referring to. Sorry for confusing you with someone else. My point was that if Neil Degrasse Tyson is utilized in a comment about the falsehood of intelligent design, it kind of defeats the argument by saying that the smartest man to ever live(in his own opinion), when he himself was an advocate of it. By process of association, if one is the smartest man to ever live(in his opinion), and intelligent design is wrong, and said person was a strong advocate of such, then said person can not be the smartest person who ever lived(in his opinion). The laws proposed by Isaac Newton found the basis of much study in physics. Without these laws many other laws fall apart. The fact that there are laws in existence that we did not set, kind of seems strange if everything was enacted in a random fashion. This should be clear to anyone. I have seen many random acts, and not one of them shared any defining characteristics. Its because they are random.

pleasethink
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Speed of light does change through different mediums, but it is considered a constant. If you don't believe that, than how could it ever be applied in a mathematical formula? Random numbers give random solutions. Would make physicists job very hard. As a person who has studied different types of engineering principles(although no expert, mind you), I could tell you there are many things excepted as constant which makes such mathematical formulations possible. Also, to say math was created by man is a stretch, cause wouldn't that imply that there are no other known forms of life in the universe? Kind of defeats the life generates randomly argument others have made, which I'm sure you probably support, given the context of our discourse. And Isaac Newton was literally obsessed with trying to calculate the exact date of the end of the world through utilizing information found in the Bible. Could possibly be considered the forefather of the Bible code movement. Anyways, it is nice to hear opposing views, and you seem intelligent. My purpose is to simply point out the magnificence/complexity of creation, and to state that as a thinking man I would have to consider myself blind to not see the order in these things. I would literally have to convince myself what I know to be true is false. This is not based upon belief, this is based upon analysis of available information. If you knew me you would understand. Here hopefully is another random thing expressing complex geometric patterns. Enjoy the beauty and magnitude.

Math was created by us to help us understand the world around us. And just like us it continues to evolve as we find new uses and new ways to apply it. I feel silly saying this because i find it weird aliens cam into this conversation. But more then likely there math would be entirely different from ours. So much so we would have to start with the concept of zero and one and hope there compatible.Assuming we are not the only intelligent life form they can fight us for the patent.I had a professor who used to say this because people make the same mistake you did. He said arithmetic is universal however mathematical abstractions requires intellect. Ill let you ponder that one for a minute. Now back to Newton i suggest you look into his affiliations with the Rosicrucians as i said not your standard christian.And was deeply involved in alchemy in fact was trying to figure out how to make the sorcerer's stone. You could say he was a magician of his times needless to say he kept this very close to the vest to avoid criticism from other scientists who lets say were not as open as he was.


discovermagazine.com...

And if you really are interested in newton check out the newton project their goal is to put everything he ever wrote in one place. Heres his beliefs on prophecy in this section.

www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk...

Oh and if in physics the speed of light was constant we wouldn't have to stipulate the speed of light in a vacuum. because when in physics we deal with refraction for example light doesnt move as fast through an atmosphere and we take that into account on our equations as well.And if the speed of light was constant we wouldnt be able to do this.

www.cnn.com...

reply to post by SuperFrog


Also, Richard Dawkins himself has come forward to say that there is probable evidence of intelligent design. Of course he still denies God. But just wanted to point that out.

I think for the sake of the thread, it would help if people would not try to discredit the religion.

If you have an argument, it would be best if it applied to the scientific or historical facts within the Bible.

reply to post by dragonridr


I will look at your information. Alchemy is actually the process of taking certain medals and turning them into gold. It is the actual definition, I believe. Also, these secret societies of which you speak literally require you to believe in God. They don't specify which God. But you must believe in God. Just decided to throw that out there. And Isaac Newton was troubled with the same things that trouble all great minds. This is called madness. It happens to them all. Albert Einstein is said to have had trouble finding his way home. Nicola Tesla dreamed that angels were talking to him. This does not detract from who he is/was. It is just a common thread that ties them all together. I theorize that being in your head all the time leads you down strange paths, which is why we consider them the great minds that we do. They think outside the box. Einstein also believed in God. Just in an indifferent God. Tesla went in both directions for most of his life. He was always back and forth on the subject, probably because of his dreams. But studying him did lead me to the vibrational frequencies which dawned on me about the Bible when it says God spoke the world into existence. Speech being a form of vibrational frequencies. Maybe this might interest you. It is the basis of HAARP technology, and a lot of the things scientists play with today. Just look at some of the things John Hutchinson has done. He's using the same thing I'm talking about today to do amazing things. This was written in a book thousands(!) of years ago. I find this very powerful. To me science is not a detraction of The Word, it is a confirmation. I know that seems like a strange thing to say.

pleasethink
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Also, Richard Dawkins himself has come forward to say that there is probable evidence of intelligent design. Of course he still denies God. But just wanted to point that out.

No he didnt this was a misquote he was asked about intelligent design and if it were possible. His answer was if it were possible it would have to be by some intelligent race in our galaxy. He figured this race would have developed by darwinian principles to aloow them to seed other parts of the galaxy. Then went on to say if it were true perhaps they left something we could find to show this. This is by now means saying he believes it it was him talking hypothetically. My buddy sent me this when his brother sent it to him his brother is very religious and he isnt. When we looked at the full interview instead of just the part he sent you understand what he was saying.

pleasethink
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

This is a common misconception. Many people nowadays have a tendency to think that humans back then were less intelligent than they are now. I believe the opposite is true. In fact there is a gentleman, by the name of Wally Wallington I believe(I could be wrong). He took an ancient mystery(the building of stonehenge) which so many people were like "Aliens must have did it" and did something very similar in his backyard using only the principles of leverage. The scientists of today were able to date the probable destruction of Sodom/Gomorrah by reading hand drawn(!) star maps that were so accurate they were able to use computer software to date the appearance of an anomalous artifact they thought was a meteor strike, and assess the approximate location of the meteor strike using the same hand drawn map. This is an astonishing amount of accuracy from a guy with a chalk on a mountain. The wisdom I speak of is not only of a scientific nature(see link from previous comment) but of a spiritual nature. How to be in tune with the Maker. In the Bible it refers to it as God lifting you up so He can look you in the eye. I know you might be trying to mock me, but I do appreciate the interest. So thanks.

My intention was not to mock. Just carrying on a debate/conversation.

I'm well aware of monolithic structures humans have created. I have seen numerous of these sites. But that isn't really addressing the topic at hand. Engineering isn't the same type of science like cosmetology or astronomy. Unless your trying to engineer a type of object that could go into space such as a rover, shuttle, or satellite. At that point in time they would rely on each other, since you would need an understanding of the environment these objects may encounter in the vacuum of space.

But to be fair, it is also true that ancient people kept track of the stars quite accurately. But they didn't have the tools and technology to really know what's out there like we do now. But I admit that these people were more advanced than people today give them credit for.

And I didn't literally mean that people were stupid back then compared to today. Ignorant would have been a better word to use. But I do not say that in a degrading kind of way. As far as brain structure goes, the human brain has been basically the same for a long time now. They lacked the knowledge and advanced technology we have in modern life. Such as computers, telescopes, satellites, the whole nine yards. They had an understanding of some things. But they were left in the dark by many things as well. More than people today at least.

reply to post by Jarring


It did kind of get off topic. I'm sorry. I was trying to support the argument that scientific facts are present in the Bible and I think it kind of went into many different scientific minds from there. I was kind of enjoying it. My fault.

i think the point of the thread is to argue what people do find valid within the bible, not what people don't.
What you don't understand within the Bible is besides the point.

pleasethink
reply to post by Jarring

 

It did kind of get off topic. I'm sorry. I was trying to support the argument that scientific facts are present in the Bible and I think it kind of went into many different scientific minds from there. I was kind of enjoying it. My fault.

Don't worry about it, you don't have to apologize to me.

reply to post by dragonridr


It does kind of hint around that it is possible though. He is a militant atheist though.

reply to post by Lingweenie


They actually found a computer that had fossilized. It was designed to track the movements of the stars. It was on tv. Heres a link:
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Lingweenie

And I didn't literally mean that people were stupid back then compared to today. Ignorant would have been a better word to use. But I do not say that in a degrading kind of way. As far as brain structure goes, the human brain has been basically the same for a long time now. They lacked the knowledge and advanced technology we have in modern life. Such as computers, telescopes, satellites, the whole nine yards. They had an understanding of some things. But they were left in the dark by many things as well. More than people today at least.

I think naive would be a better suited word. Ignorance assumes that they ignore information that is available to them. Naivety is to ignore information that is not available to them, and it's understandable.

I have appreciated the discussion tonight, and hope to turn up again tomorrow. But I hear the textbook wobble and see the textbook strange mist that tells me HAARP is moving the cold down south. I'm gonna go check it out than go to bed. Anyways here is a link to what I believe was where wonderboi got his initial information, and it is a good read. Maybe look, its could summize better than me :

www.inplainsite.org...

Night all.

pleasethink
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

They actually found a computer that had fossilized. It was designed to track the movements of the stars. It was on tv. Heres a link:
en.wikipedia.org...

Calling that a computer would be a little iffy, but not completely inaccurate. And it also still doesn't match up to things we have in modern life.

As I said before, I understand ancient people knew a little more than we think, but that device would surely still be considered primitive by our standards today.

Jarring
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

And I didn't literally mean that people were stupid back then compared to today. Ignorant would have been a better word to use. But I do not say that in a degrading kind of way. As far as brain structure goes, the human brain has been basically the same for a long time now. They lacked the knowledge and advanced technology we have in modern life. Such as computers, telescopes, satellites, the whole nine yards. They had an understanding of some things. But they were left in the dark by many things as well. More than people today at least.

I think naive would be a better suited word. Ignorance assumes that they ignore information that is available to them. Naivety is to ignore information that is not available to them, and it's understandable.

edit on 01/24/14 by Jarring because: (no reason given)

Yes you could also say naive in some instances I suppose. But the word ignorant isn't the rejection of information. It just the unknowing and unawareness of the information. Both words would actually be considered synonyms.

Lingweenie

Jarring
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

And I didn't literally mean that people were stupid back then compared to today. Ignorant would have been a better word to use. But I do not say that in a degrading kind of way. As far as brain structure goes, the human brain has been basically the same for a long time now. They lacked the knowledge and advanced technology we have in modern life. Such as computers, telescopes, satellites, the whole nine yards. They had an understanding of some things. But they were left in the dark by many things as well. More than people today at least.

I think naive would be a better suited word. Ignorance assumes that they ignore information that is available to them. Naivety is to ignore information that is not available to them, and it's understandable.

edit on 01/24/14 by Jarring because: (no reason given)

Yes you could also say naive in some instances I suppose. But the word ignorant isn't the rejection of information. It just the unknowing and unawareness of the information. Both words would actually be considered synonyms.

hmm, i suppose.
I just understand ignorance from it's root word ignore. I use terms like stupid, ignorance, and naivety separately. Like for me, none of them are necessarily bad. stupidity has to do with being overburdened by information to the point of inaction. naivety is to be without information due to lack of experience. ignorance is to ignore information out of naivety.

I can see how you would call them synonyms, but I find them both to have a specific meaning. It seems to me that people toss around words a lot without putting much thought into their meaning, and it's not just these words I'm speaking of.

how you define ignorance is how i define naivety.

Jarring

Lingweenie

Jarring
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

And I didn't literally mean that people were stupid back then compared to today. Ignorant would have been a better word to use. But I do not say that in a degrading kind of way. As far as brain structure goes, the human brain has been basically the same for a long time now. They lacked the knowledge and advanced technology we have in modern life. Such as computers, telescopes, satellites, the whole nine yards. They had an understanding of some things. But they were left in the dark by many things as well. More than people today at least.

I think naive would be a better suited word. Ignorance assumes that they ignore information that is available to them. Naivety is to ignore information that is not available to them, and it's understandable.

edit on 01/24/14 by Jarring because: (no reason given)

Yes you could also say naive in some instances I suppose. But the word ignorant isn't the rejection of information. It just the unknowing and unawareness of the information. Both words would actually be considered synonyms.

hmm, i suppose.
I just understand ignorance from it's root word ignore. I use terms like stupid, ignorance, and naivety separately. Like for me, none of them are necessarily bad. stupidity has to do with being overburdened by information to the point of inaction. naivety is to be without information due to lack of experience. ignorance is to ignore information out of naivety.

I can see how you would call them synonyms, but I find them both to have a specific meaning. It seems to me that people toss around words a lot without putting much thought into their meaning, and it's not just these words I'm speaking of.

how you define ignorance is how i define naivety.

edit on 01/24/14 by Jarring because: (no reason given)

I agree that people usually associate those two words with stupidity, but that isn't the case. People often try to use those words as insults though.

And naive and ignorant are pretty similar, but they do have a small difference in their definitions.

A naive person is someone who lacks judgment, experience, or wisdom.

Ignorance on the other hand is just someone who is unaware or oblivious to information/knowledge.

They both are worded a bit differently, but the common descriptive words between the two are roughly the same also. Some more than others.

The way I see it, is that a naive or ignorant person usually doesn't know that they are being naive, or ignorant. But both may have an awareness of their unawareness, and do it deliberately.

I'll give an example.

I could say to someone "That is an ignorant thing to say." Or "That is a naive thing to say." But, that doesn't say that they are doing it knowingly. So you'd have to assume otherwise, unless it is stated that they did indeed to it on purpose.

You would have to say something like "That is willfully ignorant thing to say" Or "That is a purposely naive think to say." In this instance you would have to add a more illuminating word such as an adverb or adjective to really say that they are doing it out of awareness or knowing.

That's just the way that I make of it at least. A tad bit confusing, but it would seem like it would be using the words a little more properly.

Jarring

UxoriousMagnus

boncho

I'm going to stop here because there's too much information to cover in one post, and i don't want to "bore you" with scientific facts; that were written about, thousands of years ago.

Weird. I didn't see any of those.

Trying to prove christianity with science one day, trying to say science is all garbage the next. I just don't get the deal with christians. Science shouldn't threaten their position, but they are either trying to usurp it for their own means or claim it has no merit, for their own means…

so not true....I think Christians are just as interested in science as non-CHristians....but you are right....we do look for God in the science. So what? We believe in Him....why wouldn't we look for Him in science?

science is a religion from my point of view. Everything we know is a religion for that matter. Days of the week, to language, labels, cause and effect, and a reason.

Science and religion are anathema.

Science looks for mistakes to learn from them and improve, no matter where it takes them. Religion looks for mistakes to refute them, argue them and further confirm their truths.

Faith and belief, by definition doesnt need proof. Why Christians and others try and use science to prove a belief I shake my head.