The Bible Versus Science

[Liv]

Saw this one tonight, and not sure what to make out of it. I''m pretty sure it's Biblical Propaganda, but this is a new take on things.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Nah... just quote farming mostly. The Isaiah quote says that the Earth is circular, not spherical. And putz that's been out on a clear night with no light pollution can see that there are more stars than can be counted. It goes on and on. Nearly all the Bible quotes are from books of poetry... hardly something to base scientific reasoning on.

I'll also point out that a cursory Google search will lead you to dozens of web pages by fans of Mohammed that will do EXACTLY the same thing, indicating how "scientifically accurate" the Qur'an is.

They are all nothing but a silly attempt to put their fairy tales on a "even footing" with science. Which only tells me that they envy science for being right a HELL of a lot more than their poems are.

[A Person]

Their middle column is pure invention and simply rewriting history. I can find no references outside apologetics sites for an of the ever being considered scientific.

And of course the left column is wishful thinking and creative re-interpretation in the light of indisputable scientific knowledge.
Biblical 'truths' never change, just the elaborate Apologetics to twist clear references to mean something else in the light of scientific investigation

Isaiah 40 describes a flat, circular Earth, with a dome like firmament like a tent over it

40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

On the other hand Greek scientists had established that the world was spherical hundreds of years before Christ, and had a good approximation of it's size. That didn't sit too well with the church

"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part that is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled."
...
"It is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man."

"it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture" - which is exactly the same argument we hear today from creationists "were you there?"

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I had thought a little more on this over the weekend. I thought it rather telling that while they give extremely dubious references for the Bible's "scientific acumen," they had NO references at all for the claims of concurrent scientific standards. Thus, they claimed that astronomy thought there were only 1100 stars, which I pointed out was patently ridiculous. I thought perhaps they had found an ancient listing of star names... which would NOT be the same thing as saying, say, that Greek science claimed there are only 1100 stars.

Similarly, where could they find any reference that would say the ocean floor is flat? Perhaps a desert-dwelling people that never actually WENT on the ocean might think that, but anyone who does any sailing would know differently by simple observation.

I can't fathom where these jokers might try to claim someone might say "all winds blow straight."

As for the weight of air or the speed of light... their claims aren't worth bothering with. I mean, read the light reference:

Job 38:19-20: Where [is] the way [to] the dwelling of light? And darkness, where [is] its place, that you may take it to its territory, That you may know the paths [to] its home?

EXCUSE ME?! Seems like the speaker (god, I think) is saying that light and dark have homes where god gets them for his uses. Not exactly the most scientifically literate statement by any means.

So, just like the "claims of scientific knowledge" that the Muslims work at finding in their holy fairy tales, it is not even close.

[Liv]

We got talking tonight about how religion is in decline in the world, and I think the internet has had a lot to do with it. The ability to just look things up rather than trust your family seems to be a huge advantage towards rational thought.

But the problem is I'm beginning to wonder if religious peoples' next effort is to completely hijack the web like they did the constitution and everything else.

[A Person]

I think the '11,000' stars thing is how many stars can be seen with the naked eye which is around that number.

However the Bible is hardly authoritative about the nature of stars, even if it did note that there are a lot of them

Revelation 6:13 ESV
And the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale.

Revelation 8:10 ESV
The third angel blew his trumpet, and a great star fell from heaven, blazing like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water.

Revelation 8:11
The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters became wormwood, and many people died from the water, because it had been made bitter.

Given that the mass of even a small star is many orders of magnitude greater than that of the Earth, they aren't going to 'fall' anywhere. And if one great star (Wormwood) did get the Earth into its gravitational field the rest of Revelation would be irrelevant. It wouldn't make the 'water bitter' and unfit to drink, the Earth would be obiterated

The Web is pretty robust. Anyone can flood it with propaganda and proselytise, but the internet is the great leveller. Anyone can post a rebuttal - as we do.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I think the '11,000' stars thing is how many stars can be seen with the naked eye which is around that number.

Can't be true. The Milky Way is a cloud that a sharp eye can distinguish as individual stars, FAR more than a mere 11000 (or 1100, as the graphic claims)... then there's the Magellanic Clouds -- which South Hemispherians at least can see. So Yeah... no clue.

[A Person]

Well we're both wrong.

When you look up at the night sky in a place that’s fairly dark, stars are everywhere. You might think there are too many stars to count, but actually, you could count them. Early astronomers counted the number of stars in the sky to get a better idea of the Universe around them, and so can you.
...
On a clear, moonless night in a place far away from city lights, you should be able to see about 2000 stars. The darker the skies, the more stars you can see. Astronomers have calculated that there are about 6,000 stars potentially visible with the unaided eye, of course, there’s no way you could see them all at the same time. Some stars are visible from the southern hemisphere, while others are visible from the northern hemisphere. Some stars are visible in the summer months, while others are visible in the winter months.

So if you’re heading outside and want to count stars, you’ll be lucky to count 2,000. Get counting!

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I couldn't say, if they're talking about stars not including the Milky Way, or if they do include those stars. It just seems to me way too low a figure. Of course, with my eyes going bad on me, it's certainly not something I could challenge personally.

[A Person]

The Milky way wasn't confirmed to be composed of stars until the invention of the telescope. Democritus thought it might be but Aristotle thought it was the "fiery exhalation" (smoke) from nearby stars. Many later astronomer's thought so but Galileo was the first to prove it

So although you can see millions of stars n the Milky Way, you can't distinguish them as individual stars with the naked eye