Scientific Accuracy in Genesis?

originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Woodcarver

im going out for a couple hrs. but id like to jus throw a spoke in the wheel of skeptics that may keep u buzzing while im gone.

the father of the big bang theory is a catholic priest.

most people do not know this. and regarding the metaphoric creation story. the part about the big bang isnt metaphoric. it's more than 50% plain english. with 40% or less metaphoric translation at least when referring to the events of the big bang.

if i cant find that post im just going to repost it with a full explanation later.

It might surprise you to know that most everybody who has these convis already knows that. So it's no revelation that should stop anyone in there tracks. By the way, he used science to come to this conclusion, not the bible.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I know that, which is why it is a METAPHOR and not literal. Do you understand what a metaphor is? It takes liberties in explaining in depth what it is trying to convey, so instead of explaining everything in excruciating detail it simplified it into an easy to digest format.

If you don't know how sonoluminescense relates to the creation account in Genesis then I'll just assume you didn't read the OP and/or being obtuse. Reread the OP, it's an easy concept to grasp. God spoke and created sound waves that passed through the water he was hovering over and created light. That's what sonoluminesence is, sound waves passing through water and creating light.

Like I said, it is already explained in the OP and if you can't make the obvious connection then you probably have a bias against the bible. I don't believe the bible is infallible nor the word of God but I do see the connection here.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Woodcarver

The metaphor lines up with a scientific phenomena. T

Metaphors always "line up" with something - otherwise they would not be metaphors.

And everything around us us a scientific phenomena - so your point is trivial.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I don't think it's trivial at all. Water, sound, and light, all three being present within sonoluminesence and Genesis.

This doesn't prove the bible has all the answers nor does it prove it's the word of God. I don't see why there has to be any resistance to seeing the parallels here.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Of course you dont' think it is trivial - you have an agenda that cannot survive if it is trivial.

None-the-less it is trivial because it is a given - it cannot be otherwise, it is not a special case, it is and always will be the case that every metaphor applies to something real, and everything real is a "scientific phenomena".

Ergo any similarity between science and genesis is trivial.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

What agenda do I have exactly? I assume since you say I have one you know what it is? Because I don't have any agenda other than to point out the parallels between the two. It doesn't go any further than that.

If Genesis is a metaphor and represents a real thing and you admit to it, what's the big deal? Why are you so against admitting it represents a real thing?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Your agenda is to try to give some scientific credibility to genesis. You said as much earlier on this p[age:

God spoke and created sound waves that passed through the water he was hovering over and created light. That's what sonoluminesence is, sound waves passing through water and creating light.

Like I said, it is already explained in the OP and if you can't make the obvious connection then you probably have a bias against the bible. I don't believe the bible is infallible nor the word of God but I do see the connection here.

Do try to be honest.

And yes a metaphor represents a real thing - otherwise it can't be a metaphor, as I have already said twice.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I'm not trying to give scientific credibility to anything, that's why the title has a question mark beside it. Did you read the last paragraph of my OP? It says to take it as you will and that I was only putting it out there to give people something to think about. I'm leaving it up to the reader to decide whether it gives it scientific credibility. My personal opinion is that the two things are similar, which they are. You seem to want to deny the similarities for some reason.

Also, what's wrong with the bible having scientific credibility? Is that somehow a bad thing to you? If so, it seems as though you are the one with an agenda.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

There's nothing wrong with the bible having scientific credibility - it's just that i doesn't.

And "just asking questions" is a crock.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I'd have to say you are so against the bible being right in any way that you refuse to see the parallels between it and science. If you did acknowledge what it gets right, your whole agenda would be crushed. Your agenda is to deny the bible at every turn.

I can't blame you though, the bible has been used for so much evil throughout history. I wouldn't want to support it either, and I don't for the most part, but I can't ignore the wisdom it has within it. You have to do more than just scratch the surface to get the message underneath the literal interpretation of the bible.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I don't think it's trivial at all. Water, sound, and light, all three being present within sonoluminesence and Genesis.

This doesn't prove the bible has all the answers nor does it prove it's the word of God. I don't see why there has to be any resistance to seeing the parallels here.

Because science is very literal. If one part of a theory doesn't fit, then the theory has to be changed to fit what is observed. You mentioning sonoluminescence and the bible verse you burped up are not in any way relevant to eachother. Your title is "scientific accuracy in genesis?" And then you refuse to explain how SL is relevant to the genesis story. Is it because water and light were mentioned in both of these stories? I asked you, "how does SL bring forth genesis?" And you said i should read your OP again. Well i did, and it Doesn't explain anything except that they both mention water and light. My reply was that there were trillions of suns, including our own, already burning at the time when our earth was forming. So there was already light. Plus if there was liquid water on the earth, that also means that our sun was already there. Or else it would be ice. You have ignored that point at least three times now. You would have to ignore everything we know about the way the world works in order for your metaphor to be a metaphor about the way we already know the universe works. The people who wrote those stories had an even smaller understanding of the actual processes of the physical world than even you seem to. Reading the bible proves that they didn't understand things. Not they they were technologically or morally advanced compared to modern people. My points are valid. Will you acknowledge them?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I'd have to say you are so against the bible being right in any way that you refuse to see the parallels between it and science. If you did acknowledge what it gets right, your whole agenda would be crushed. Your agenda is to deny the bible at every turn.

I can't blame you though, the bible has been used for so much evil throughout history. I wouldn't want to support it either, and I don't for the most part, but I can't ignore the wisdom it has within it. You have to do more than just scratch the surface to get the message underneath the literal interpretation of the bible.

You don't have to be against the bible to realise that the stories are full of contradictions. The processes in genesis, are all out of order. God creates all the plants before he lights the sun. But we know for an absolute fact that the sun has been burning far longer than the earth has had life on it. How many people are resurected in the bible? How many speaking animals? It is as scientifically accurate as Aesop's fables or the Illiad which were both written before the new testament.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
There is not really any science in the bible.

Nor is there any truth in Science 'Fiction'...

In fact, I think a more accurate name for Science would be Scientology.

The cult of scientific fundamentalism is just as dangerous as any other cult out there if not more so.

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Woodcarver
There is not really any science in the bible.

Nor is there any truth in Science 'Fiction'...

In fact, I think a more accurate name for Science would be Scientology.

The cult of scientific fundamentalism is just as dangerous as any other cult out there if not more so.

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

Science is a process. It is not the culmination of everything tha a scientist says. Scientists are wrong all the time. That is why the data is more important than the beliefs of the scientist.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Everything in the bible does not line up scientifically because it is a parable, taking liberties in using scientifically accurate stories in order to get a spiritual truth across.

Did the world actually get flooded entirely? Hell no, but it symbolizes a new start, something we were all given when we were born on this planet. We rode the waters of the womb and were born again, given a new start just as Noah and his family were given.

Did an invisible sky daddy float over some water and speak to create light? No, but water and sound together create light as sonoluminescence proves. It is a metaphorical story to explain a scientific process. What are you? Light. It represents the creation of life through natural processes. Words are information, sperm is information, sperm penetrated the waters of the egg and created life, YOU. You are a being of light, you are the end result of information (words/sperm) penetrating water (egg/womb).

Yes, stars existed long before the Earth did, no one is arguing that. You seem to be arguing against the literal interpretation of Genesis when no one is even making that argument. You're confused and probably just looking to disagree more than anything.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I'd have to say you are so against the bible being right in any way......

No - you don't have to say that at all - you choose to, although really you know little about me.

that you refuse to see the parallels between it and science.

I do see them - as I have said at least 3 times already - they are trivial.

If you did acknowledge what it gets right, your whole agenda would be crushed.

There is a difference between "what it gets right" and "parallels between it and science" - if you want to discuss what it gets right then present something that you think it gets right and don't change the subject.

Your agenda is to deny the bible at every turn.

I don't even know what that means. I certainly do not deny the bible exists for example, nor that it is the foundation document for the christian faith, nor that is has some apparently factual historical records in it, nor that some of it is a good guide for living in a desert....

I can't ignore the wisdom it has within it.

That is your issue, not mine, and really I wonder about that since you have denied that you were saying it is true about somnambulance and "just asking questions" and now you are claiming it as some source of thrush it seems to me you do not actually have a good grasp of what you mean yourself!!

You have to do more than just scratch the surface to get the message underneath the literal interpretation of the bible.

As soon as you have to "get the message underneath" there stops being any actual objective "truth" involved - it is all personal interpretation and any persons interpretation is as valid as any other persons - which is to say it is an opinion.

I think Hugh Ross, PhD, speaks about this topic: he says it is uncanny that the scientific method seems encoded within Genesis:

yt: Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence - Hugh Ross, PhD
youtu.be...


a few other interesting vids on science:

youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...


yt: Young Earth - Young Universe
youtu.be...

yt: Scientific Evidence for God - Dr. Strauss
youtu.be...
physics professor at the University of Oklahoma who often spends his time studying smashed subatomic particles at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN laboratory in Switzerland

The simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists.
-W E H Lecky on Jesus’s ministry

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
I think Hugh Ross, PhD, speaks about this topic: he says it is uncanny that the scientific method seems encoded within Genesis:

yt: Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence - Hugh Ross, PhD
youtu.be...


a few other interesting vids on science:

youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...


yt: Young Earth - Young Universe
youtu.be...

yt: Scientific Evidence for God - Dr. Strauss
youtu.be...
physics professor at the University of Oklahoma who often spends his time studying smashed subatomic particles at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN laboratory in Switzerland

The simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists.
-W E H Lecky on Jesus’s ministry

I know these guys work very well. Why don't you go to each of these videos and pick out the most compelling points they make. Bring them back here for discussion. Don't just post hours of video and expect people to jump right on it. What about those videos is compelling? What pieces of info best make the point you are trying to get across? From what i have seen, none of those people bring any evidence or can even say a single point that proves they are correct in their beliefs. They only say "they believe very strongly"

Sometimes they make vague references between some known process and a quote from the bible, but it doesn't prove anything. I've never seen a scientist who believes in gods for a scientific reason. Only an emotional one.

Their opinions on the matter could and should not enter a discussion of the scientific accuracy of the bible. Only what they can prove.

It should take more than some poetic words and an emotional plea to convince you of the truth of any one's claims, even the most prestigious scientists.