The Bible Is A Book Full Of Error, eh? (Poll)

Whether that's true or not, what it does contain is at least 101 scientific facts which have been proven true - http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

My question to you, how, if the Bible is simply the error-filled words of primitive man, did they get so much right? :D

I would like to know what you think of the Muslims that say the Koran predicted scientific advancements/theories.Ingenemployee

First, I would like to see some evidence in favour of their claims, such as what I posted above. But regardless, 'that' isn't the issue here, nor is it really relevant.

[QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]I would like to know what you think of the Muslims that say the Koran predicted scientific advancements/theories.Lansdowne5

First, I would like to see some evidence in favour of their claims, such as what I posted above. But regardless, 'that' isn't the issue here, nor is it really relevant.

You can go back a few pages on OT, there's this guy who has a habit of reposting the same huge thread about how Islam must be the correct religion because of how scientifically accurate is and he lists off all these facts.

And it is relevant because a competing religion is just as valid using your argument. But what it really shows is that you can take vague and abstract statements (which religious texts tend to be full of) and claim that they predicted a scientific discovery or some other event.

If the Bible truly is so scientifically accurate then why don't Chirstians go search through the Bible and tell us all about scientific facts that science has yet to discover?

And for the sake of argument, if the Bible is so scientifically accurate how do you explain the painfully incorrect things it asserts as truth? You know, like how in the beginning of the book of Genesis the Bible claims that night and day were created before the sun and stars (kind of hard to have light and thus day without stars), or how the Bible constantly refers to the Earth's "four corners" as if it's a flat object.

The primitive writers didn't get a lot right. The account of Noah wasn't even first hand and there's little evidence of the Flood. Most of those "facts" are simply lines of poetry that have been construed to mean something entirely different. In fact, the first "fact" mentioned is entirely wrong. The Earth is held by the sun's gravity. That's why it revolves around the sun, and comparing it to other false guesses doesn't make it any more true.

Additionally, it doesn't even know how science operates, which is within experimentation. Just because the results prove one theory true today doesn't mean that tomorrow, it'll still be the same if they find a discrepancy in additional testing that requires a revision of said theory. In other words, science isn't static, like the Bible is.

Furthermore, modern science favors an ancient Earth versus a young Earth.

Oh, and I love Leviticus 15:13. Did you get this off of Kirk Cameron's sight because I've seen a similar list elsewhere and Leviticus 15:13 is quite hilarious if you read the full quote.

"And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean." -Leviticus 15:13 (KJV)

Notice that the man has to wait seven days to clean himself. Modern science wouldn't recommend a weekly rinse. That deliberate attempt to avoid half of the passage is rather annoying and very deceitful to do. I have nothing further to add.

Oh heck, I could spend a whole day explaining why none of those are valid 'declarations of scientific fact'.

Actually a lot of them are really innaccurate.

No offense, but I kind of had to laugh at #2. The reason? Atomic theory has way more unanswered questions in it than evolutionary theory. Yet, here people are accepting atomic theory at face value because they feel it demonstrates the Bible's accuracy, and yet they'll put up an endless stream of objections to evolutionary theory because they feel it does the opposite.

That's what we in the business call "intellectual dishonesty" - arguing not because they desire the truth, but because they desire to validate a preconceived conclusion. People like asking "Have you ever seen macroevolution?" - well, have you ever seen an atom? Scientists can't even agree on what an enlarged atom would look like.

First, I would like to see some evidence in favour of their claims, such as what I posted above. But regardless, 'that' isn't the issue here, nor is it really relevant.

Lansdowne5

Here is an example:

http://home.att.net/~a.f.aly/creation.htm

And it absolutely is relevant. If this is taken to be evidence in favor of the divinely inspired nature of the Bible (reasoning that humans could not possibly have known these things), then you must take that to be evidence of the divinely inspired nature of the Qur'an, too.

(not related to TC) In my crusade against divorcing the Christ of Faith from the Jesus of History as so many liberal academic Christians did in the mid-20th century (C.S. Lewis, Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann), I wound up taking a much more liberal stance towards the Bible (which, incidentally, may coincide much more closely with the beliefs of the Israelites, the early church, and the authors themselves :P). The Bible is a series of documents written by men who may have received some sort of divine guidance (be it direct revelation from God in the case of Paul or some of the prophets, connection to a prophet in the case of other prophetic books, or connection to the words and deeds of Jesus in the case of Paul and the Gospel Evangelist). But when Christians use the phrase "word of God", They, in more fundamentalist circles, tend to define that as the mechanical dictation from the Holy spirit himself to write the Bible. The biblical authors, as the fundamentalists say, were almost possessed by God, didn't know what they were writing, when they wrote scripture.

that, my friends, is abject nonsense.

No offense, but I kind of had to laugh at #2. The reason? Atomic theory has way more unanswered questions in it than evolutionary theory. Yet, here people are accepting atomic theory at face value because they feel it demonstrates the Bible's accuracy, and yet they'll put up an endless stream of objections to evolutionary theory because they feel it does the opposite.

That's what we in the business call "intellectual dishonesty" - arguing not because they desire the truth, but because they desire to validate a preconceived conclusion. People like asking "Have you ever seen macroevolution?" - well, have you ever seen an atom? Scientists can't even agree on what an enlarged atom would look like.

GabuEx

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/nano/seeforyourself/153.asp

They, in more fundamentalist circles, tend to define that as the mechanical dictation from the Holy spirit himself to write the Bible. The biblical authors, as the fundamentalists say, were almost possessed by God, didn't know what they were writing, when they wrote scripture.

danwallacefan

That's because they 'were', pretty much. But then again, the following verses are just abject nonsense aren't they?:

2Ti 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 

2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 

2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The writers were simply putting God's Word to paper, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. :)

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]They, in more fundamentalist circles, tend to define that as the mechanical dictation from the Holy spirit himself to write the Bible. The biblical authors, as the fundamentalists say, were almost possessed by God, didn't know what they were writing, when they wrote scripture.

Lansdowne5

That's because they 'were', pretty much. But then again, the following verses are just abject nonsense aren't they?:

2Ti 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 

2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 

2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The writers were simply putting God's Word to paper, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. :)

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No offense, but I kind of had to laugh at #2. The reason? Atomic theory has way more unanswered questions in it than evolutionary theory. Yet, here people are accepting atomic theory at face value because they feel it demonstrates the Bible's accuracy, and yet they'll put up an endless stream of objections to evolutionary theory because they feel it does the opposite.

That's what we in the business call "intellectual dishonesty" - arguing not because they desire the truth, but because they desire to validate a preconceived conclusion. People like asking "Have you ever seen macroevolution?" - well, have you ever seen an atom? Scientists can't even agree on what an enlarged atom would look like.

MetalGear_Ninty

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/nano/seeforyourself/153.asp

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]They, in more fundamentalist circles, tend to define that as the mechanical dictation from the Holy spirit himself to write the Bible. The biblical authors, as the fundamentalists say, were almost possessed by God, didn't know what they were writing, when they wrote scripture.

Lansdowne5

That's because they 'were', pretty much. But then again, the following verses are just abject nonsense aren't they?:

2Ti 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 

2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 

2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The writers were simply putting God's Word to paper, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. :)

...

>_____>

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]They, in more fundamentalist circles, tend to define that as the mechanical dictation from the Holy spirit himself to write the Bible. The biblical authors, as the fundamentalists say, were almost possessed by God, didn't know what they were writing, when they wrote scripture.

Funky_Llama

That's because they 'were', pretty much. But then again, the following verses are just abject nonsense aren't they?:

2Ti 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 

2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 

2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The writers were simply putting God's Word to paper, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. :)

...

>_____>

No. Being a Christian himself I presume danwallacefan would be looking for internal evidence which supports the fact that God is the True author of Scripture.......

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]They, in more fundamentalist circles, tend to define that as the mechanical dictation from the Holy spirit himself to write the Bible. The biblical authors, as the fundamentalists say, were almost possessed by God, didn't know what they were writing, when they wrote scripture.

Teenaged

That's because they 'were', pretty much. But then again, the following verses are just abject nonsense aren't they?:

2Ti 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 

2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 

2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The writers were simply putting God's Word to paper, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. :)

I didn't say that, Teenaged. Their existance was not everriden at all, they knew what was happening and their free will was perfectly intact. Note that I said "pretty much" in reply to danwallacefan. :)

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]They, in more fundamentalist circles, tend to define that as the mechanical dictation from the Holy spirit himself to write the Bible. The biblical authors, as the fundamentalists say, were almost possessed by God, didn't know what they were writing, when they wrote scripture.

Lansdowne5

That's because they 'were', pretty much. But then again, the following verses are just abject nonsense aren't they?:

2Ti 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 

2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 

2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The writers were simply putting God's Word to paper, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. :)

...

>_____>

No. Being a Christian himself I presume danwallacefan would be looking for internal evidence which supports the fact that God is the True author of Scripture.......

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]They, in more fundamentalist circles, tend to define that as the mechanical dictation from the Holy spirit himself to write the Bible. The biblical authors, as the fundamentalists say, were almost possessed by God, didn't know what they were writing, when they wrote scripture.

Lansdowne5

That's because they 'were', pretty much. But then again, the following verses are just abject nonsense aren't they?:

2Ti 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 

2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 

2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The writers were simply putting God's Word to paper, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. :)

I didn't say that, Teenaged. Their existance was not everriden at all, they knew what was happening and their free will was perfectly intact. Note that I said "pretty much" in reply to danwallacefan. :)

I didn't say that, Teenaged. Their existance was not everriden at all, they knew what was happening and their free will was perfectly intact. Note that I said "pretty much" in reply to danwallacefan. :)

Lansdowne5

And as F_L said, they could write pretty much what they wanted since they were not completely possessed by the Holy Spirit. Isn't that the meaning of Free will after all? The freedom they had to write what they thought was right along with the other stuff. 

And it absolutely is relevant. If this is taken to be evidence in favor of the divinely inspired nature of the Bible (reasoning that humans could not possibly have known these things), then you must take that to be evidence of the divinely inspired nature of the Qur'an, too.

GabuEx

This wasn't really evidence in favour of the Bible being divinely inspired. I was simply asking people's opinions on how there could be so many things scientifically correct in it if it was only the words of "primitive" man.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

And it absolutely is relevant. If this is taken to be evidence in favor of the divinely inspired nature of the Bible (reasoning that humans could not possibly have known these things), then you must take that to be evidence of the divinely inspired nature of the Qur'an, too.

Lansdowne5

This wasn't really evidence in favour of the Bible being divinely inspired. I was simply asking people's opinions on how there could be so many things scientifically correct in it if it was only the words of "primitive" man.

And you know what? Since as you admit it is not evidence then what's the point to discuss it? :roll: .......>_______>

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

I didn't say that, Teenaged. Their existance was not everriden at all, they knew what was happening and their free will was perfectly intact. Note that I said "pretty much" in reply to danwallacefan. :)

Teenaged

And as F_L said, they could write pretty much what they wanted since they were not completely possessed by the Holy Spirit. Isn't that the meaning of Free will after all? The freedom they had to write what they thought was right along with the other stuff. 

No. The writer's of the Bible were godly men, the Holy Spirit was already in their lives. 'They' wrote it, but the Holy Spirit was influencing them on 'what' to write. If they didn't want to write it, they could have decided not to. It wasn't as if God was forcing them to do it, or anything. Their free will was totally intact.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

And it absolutely is relevant. If this is taken to be evidence in favor of the divinely inspired nature of the Bible (reasoning that humans could not possibly have known these things), then you must take that to be evidence of the divinely inspired nature of the Qur'an, too.

Teenaged

This wasn't really evidence in favour of the Bible being divinely inspired. I was simply asking people's opinions on how there could be so many things scientifically correct in it if it was only the words of "primitive" man.

And you know what? Since as you admit it is not evidence then what's the point to discuss it? :roll: .......>_______>

To get people's opinions and make people think.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

And it absolutely is relevant. If this is taken to be evidence in favor of the divinely inspired nature of the Bible (reasoning that humans could not possibly have known these things), then you must take that to be evidence of the divinely inspired nature of the Qur'an, too.

Lansdowne5

This wasn't really evidence in favour of the Bible being divinely inspired. I was simply asking people's opinions on how there could be so many things scientifically correct in it if it was only the words of "primitive" man.

And you know what? Since as you admit it is not evidence then what's the point to discuss it? :roll: .......>_______>

To get people's opinions and make people think.

Everytime someone throws back something at you you go like "well that's not the prupose here, next one please".

Do you want to make a list of what are the acceptable opinions?

No. The writer's of the Bible were godly men, the Holy Spirit was already in their lives. 'They' wrote it, but the Holy Spirit was influencing them on 'what' to write. If they didn't want to write it, they could have decided not to. It wasn't as if God was forcing them to do it, or anything. Their free will was totally intact.

Lansdowne5

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

I didn't say that, Teenaged. Their existance was not everriden at all, they knew what was happening and their free will was perfectly intact. Note that I said "pretty much" in reply to danwallacefan. :)

Lansdowne5

And as F_L said, they could write pretty much what they wanted since they were not completely possessed by the Holy Spirit. Isn't that the meaning of Free will after all? The freedom they had to write what they thought was right along with the other stuff. 

No. The writer's of the Bible were godly men, the Holy Spirit was already in their lives. 'They' wrote it, but the Holy Spirit was influencing them on 'what' to write. If they didn't want to write it, they could have decided not to. It wasn't as if God was forcing them to do it, or anything. Their free will was totally intact.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

No. The writer's of the Bible were godly men, the Holy Spirit was already in their lives. 'They' wrote it, but the Holy Spirit was influencing them on 'what' to write. If they didn't want to write it, they could have decided not to. It wasn't as if God was forcing them to do it, or anything. Their free will was totally intact.

Teenaged

But they had repented of their sin and were delivering God's message. They were godly men. Yes, they were subject to error, but not if God was speaking through them. And what "they" wanted to write would be the same as what "God" wanted to write.....because, yep, you've got it, they were godly men! :o

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

No. The writer's of the Bible were godly men, the Holy Spirit was already in their lives. 'They' wrote it, but the Holy Spirit was influencing them on 'what' to write. If they didn't want to write it, they could have decided not to. It wasn't as if God was forcing them to do it, or anything. Their free will was totally intact.

Lansdowne5

But they had repented of their sin and were delivering God's message. They were godly men. Yes, they were subject to error, but not if God was speaking through them. And what "they" wanted to write would be the same as what "God" wanted to write.....because, yep, you've got it, they were godly men! :o

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

No. The writer's of the Bible were godly men, the Holy Spirit was already in their lives. 'They' wrote it, but the Holy Spirit was influencing them on 'what' to write. If they didn't want to write it, they could have decided not to. It wasn't as if God was forcing them to do it, or anything. Their free will was totally intact.

Teenaged

But they had repented of their sin and were delivering God's message. They were godly men. Yes, they were subject to error, but not if God was speaking through them. And what "they" wanted to write would be the same as what "God" wanted to write.....because, yep, you've got it, they were godly men! :o

God purified what they wrote to make it correct. Errant nature + God's purification = Inerrant and Infallible Word. 

God purified what they wrote to make it correct. Errant nature + God's purfication = Inerrant and Infallible Word. 

Lansdowne5

No offense, but I kind of had to laugh at #2. The reason? Atomic theory has way more unanswered questions in it than evolutionary theory. Yet, here people are accepting atomic theory at face value because they feel it demonstrates the Bible's accuracy, and yet they'll put up an endless stream of objections to evolutionary theory because they feel it does the opposite.

GabuEx

But Evolutionary theory conflicts with the Bible, whereas Atomic theory does not. Also, you realize we are instructed to "keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" - 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) 

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No offense, but I kind of had to laugh at #2. The reason? Atomic theory has way more unanswered questions in it than evolutionary theory. Yet, here people are accepting atomic theory at face value because they feel it demonstrates the Bible's accuracy, and yet they'll put up an endless stream of objections to evolutionary theory because they feel it does the opposite.

That's what we in the business call "intellectual dishonesty" - arguing not because they desire the truth, but because they desire to validate a preconceived conclusion. People like asking "Have you ever seen macroevolution?" - well, have you ever seen an atom? Scientists can't even agree on what an enlarged atom would look like.

Funky_Llama

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/nano/seeforyourself/153.asp

What do you mean, "they look nothing like that"?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No offense, but I kind of had to laugh at #2. The reason? Atomic theory has way more unanswered questions in it than evolutionary theory. Yet, here people are accepting atomic theory at face value because they feel it demonstrates the Bible's accuracy, and yet they'll put up an endless stream of objections to evolutionary theory because they feel it does the opposite.

That's what we in the business call "intellectual dishonesty" - arguing not because they desire the truth, but because they desire to validate a preconceived conclusion. People like asking "Have you ever seen macroevolution?" - well, have you ever seen an atom? Scientists can't even agree on what an enlarged atom would look like.

MetalGear_Ninty

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/nano/seeforyourself/153.asp

What do you mean, "they look nothing like that"?

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

God purified what they wrote to make it correct. Errant nature + God's purfication = Inerrant and Infallible Word. 

Teenaged

It's not in my mind, Teenaged. I believe what Scripture says, and that 'is' what Scripture says on the subject. I'll just say this one last time. Humans have a sinful nature, right? We are not perfect and we are certainly not all-knowing. Because of this we make mistakes - we are errant. However, those who accept God and invite the Holy Spirit into their lives are renewed. They are refreshed. From that point on we decide to live for God and obey His Will. What 'God' wants becomes what 'we' want.  

The authors of the Old Testament were godly men who trusted God. What God wanted, they wanted. The prophets, as I've previously explained, had the Holy Spirit in their lives, and as such were specific individuals who God chose to give knowledge and wisdom to. In this way, because they had the knowledge and wisdom, they could speak God's Word. God didn't 'take' anything away from them, he 'gave' them something. :)

Here's one final verse for reflection: "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth" - 1 Corinthians 2:13 

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No offense, but I kind of had to laugh at #2. The reason? Atomic theory has way more unanswered questions in it than evolutionary theory. Yet, here people are accepting atomic theory at face value because they feel it demonstrates the Bible's accuracy, and yet they'll put up an endless stream of objections to evolutionary theory because they feel it does the opposite.

That's what we in the business call "intellectual dishonesty" - arguing not because they desire the truth, but because they desire to validate a preconceived conclusion. People like asking "Have you ever seen macroevolution?" - well, have you ever seen an atom? Scientists can't even agree on what an enlarged atom would look like.

Funky_Llama

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/nano/seeforyourself/153.asp

What do you mean, "they look nothing like that"?

A lot of microscopy techniques use false-colour anyway; I don't think anybody from that picture would deduce that atoms are blue.

I don't see why using that data would give a false impression of what an atom would 'look' like.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

God purified what they wrote to make it correct. Errant nature + God's purfication = Inerrant and Infallible Word. 

Lansdowne5

It's not in my mind, Teenaged. I believe what Scripture says, and that 'is' what Scripture says on the subject. I'll just say this one last time. Humans have a sinful nature, right? We are not perfect and we are certainly not all-knowing. Because of this we make mistakes - we are errant. However, those who accept God and invite the Holy Spirit into their lives are renewed. They are refreshed. From that point on we decide to live for God and obey His Will. What 'God' wants becomes what 'we' want.  

The authors of the Old Testament were godly men who trusted God. What God wanted, they wanted. The prophets, as I've previously explained, had the Holy Spirit in their lives, and as such were specific individuals who God chose to give knowledge and wisdom to. In this way, because they had the knowledge and wisdom, they could speak God's Word. God didn't 'take' anything away from them, he 'gave' them something. :)

Here's one final verse for reflection: "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth" - 1 Corinthians 2:13 

For instance CM and maheo (if I remember correctly) said that it is impossible for humans to follow the ten commandments to the letter, even after they are born-again Christians, simply because of their human nature. Thus, despite the fact that what god wants has become what they want, still their human nature makes them susceptible to human imperfections and passions. In other words, it can be turned to the better but never to be erased at all.

The authors of the Bible could very well have filtered the word of god, not because they wanted to distort it or to spread lies, but because their human nature led them to allow their judgement to adjust the word of god to their times.

And with your response (by not denying the fact that the human nature cannot be "erased") you actually agree with this: that the human nature is always there. Maybe for people with the Holy Spirit, less than those who don't have it, but never gone completely.

A lot of microscopy techniques use false-colour anyway; I don't think anybody from that picture would deduce that atoms are blue.

I don't see why using that data would give a false impression of what an atom would 'look' like.

MetalGear_Ninty

Anyway, what that shows is what the electric field around an atom 'looks' like, not what an atom would look like.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No offense, but I kind of had to laugh at #2. The reason? Atomic theory has way more unanswered questions in it than evolutionary theory. Yet, here people are accepting atomic theory at face value because they feel it demonstrates the Bible's accuracy, and yet they'll put up an endless stream of objections to evolutionary theory because they feel it does the opposite.

That's what we in the business call "intellectual dishonesty" - arguing not because they desire the truth, but because they desire to validate a preconceived conclusion. People like asking "Have you ever seen macroevolution?" - well, have you ever seen an atom? Scientists can't even agree on what an enlarged atom would look like.

MetalGear_Ninty

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/nano/seeforyourself/153.asp

What do you mean, "they look nothing like that"?

A lot of microscopy techniques use false-colour anyway; I don't think anybody from that picture would deduce that atoms are blue.

I don't see why using that data would give a false impression of what an atom would 'look' like.

It's not the color he's talking about, it's the shape. We have no way to optically look at an atom. The best we can do is exploit electric and magnetic fields to figure out an atom's location. The shape that you see of an atom in pictures like that is really just it's electrical field, not the nucleus and electrons. Think of it as trying to determine the shape of a magent by passing another magnet over it. You could figure out roughly how big the magnet you're measuring is based off the area where the other magnet is being repelled by, but that would would just give you a blob if you graphed out the area of repulsion on a 3D plane. A horseshoe magnet, for example, would appear to be a sphere (more or less) and a bar magnet would appear to be a dumbell shape.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

A lot of microscopy techniques use false-colour anyway; I don't think anybody from that picture would deduce that atoms are blue.

I don't see why using that data would give a false impression of what an atom would 'look' like.

Funky_Llama

Anyway, what that shows is what the electric field around an atom 'looks' like, not what an atom would look like.

It's not the color he's talking about, it's the shape. We have no way to optically look at an atom. The best we can do is exploit electric and magnetic fields to figure out an atom's location. The shape that you see of an atom in pictures like that is really just it's electrical field, not the nucleus and electrons. Think of it as trying to determine the shape of a magent by passing another magnet over it. You could figure out roughly how big the magnet you're measuring is based off the area where the other magnet is being repelled by, but that would would just give you a blob if you graphed out the area of repulsion on a 3D plane. A horseshoe magnet, for example, would appear to be a sphere (more or less) and a bar magnet would appear to be a dumbell shape. gameguy6700

If you go outside and look at the sun, you could say that you are not really looking at the surface of the sun, but just the light coming from it.

But you're still looking at the sun though -- just because you can't see the intricate details of something does not mean you can't see it altogether.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

A lot of microscopy techniques use false-colour anyway; I don't think anybody from that picture would deduce that atoms are blue.

I don't see why using that data would give a false impression of what an atom would 'look' like.

MetalGear_Ninty

Anyway, what that shows is what the electric field around an atom 'looks' like, not what an atom would look like.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

A lot of microscopy techniques use false-colour anyway; I don't think anybody from that picture would deduce that atoms are blue.

I don't see why using that data would give a false impression of what an atom would 'look' like.

Funky_Llama

Anyway, what that shows is what the electric field around an atom 'looks' like, not what an atom would look like.

Well, an atom doesn't have a constant shape as the electron's are all flying about anyway -- but this really gos back to the Sun analogy I mentioned earlier -- you're still 'seeing' the atom.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

And it absolutely is relevant. If this is taken to be evidence in favor of the divinely inspired nature of the Bible (reasoning that humans could not possibly have known these things), then you must take that to be evidence of the divinely inspired nature of the Qur'an, too.

Lansdowne5

This wasn't really evidence in favour of the Bible being divinely inspired. I was simply asking people's opinions on how there could be so many things scientifically correct in it if it was only the words of "primitive" man.

One of the options in the poll (which I imagine was the option you picked) as an explanation for the apparent accuracy of the Bible was "It Truly Is The Word of God".  And now you're telling me that the point of this is not to attempt to prove that the Bible was divinely inspired? :P  At least be honest about your motivation.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No offense, but I kind of had to laugh at #2. The reason? Atomic theory has way more unanswered questions in it than evolutionary theory. Yet, here people are accepting atomic theory at face value because they feel it demonstrates the Bible's accuracy, and yet they'll put up an endless stream of objections to evolutionary theory because they feel it does the opposite.

Lansdowne5

But Evolutionary theory conflicts with the Bible, whereas Atomic theory does not. Also, you realize we are instructed to "keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" - 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) 

...Yes, which, er, was exactly what I said in what you just quoted. :P

I already pointed out one very, very strong problem with atomic theory: scientists still cannot agree on the precise internal shape of an atom.  Ought this not be a red flag in people's minds?  Yet, I have never once heard any creationist say, "They can't even agree on what atoms looks like, and yet they expect us to believe them when they say they exist?  Nonsense!"  This is the fundamental problem I have: creationists always act as though their interest is in being scientifically rigorous and to uphold the truth, as they claim scientists in the field of biology do not do, and yet I have seen not one objection raised against atomic theory despite its very fundamental unanswered questions.

The only conclusion I can reach is that they have simply cherry-picked what they want to believe and rejected what they don't, because otherwise they would be raising very similar questions about atomic theory as well rather than simply accepting it purely at face value (precisely as they accuse others of doing for evolution, in fact).  If you want to be truly scientific and a true skeptic, it behooves you to hold the things that support your beliefs to the same level of scrutiny as the things that don't.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

A lot of microscopy techniques use false-colour anyway; I don't think anybody from that picture would deduce that atoms are blue.

I don't see why using that data would give a false impression of what an atom would 'look' like.

MetalGear_Ninty

Anyway, what that shows is what the electric field around an atom 'looks' like, not what an atom would look like.

Well, an atom doesn't have a constant shape as the electron's are all flying about anyway -- but this really gos back to the Sun analogy I mentioned earlier -- you're still 'seeing' the atom.

But you have admitted (implicitely at least and please do correct me if I am wrong) that even when someone accepts god, he/she is still prone to sinning, is still prone to passions, it's just that it happens at a smaller degree, am I right? But still he/she is prone to those things even by little. Humans cannot be rid of their huma nature. Even if whatgod wants becomes what they want still they can't follow it to the letter due to their sinnful nature.

For instance CM and maheo (if I remember correctly) said that it is impossible for humans to follow the ten commandments to the letter, even after they are born-again Christians, simply because of their human nature. Thus, despite the fact that what god wants has become what they want, still their human nature makes them susceptible to human imperfections and passions. In other words, it can be turned to the better but never to be erased at all.

The authors of the Bible could very well have filtered the word of god, not because they wanted to distort it or to spread lies, but because their human nature led them to allow their judgement to adjust the word of god to their times.

And with your response (by not denying the fact that the human nature cannot be "erased") you actually agree with this: that the human nature is always there. Maybe for people with the Holy Spirit, less than those who don't have it, but never gone completely.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

A lot of microscopy techniques use false-colour anyway; I don't think anybody from that picture would deduce that atoms are blue.

I don't see why using that data would give a false impression of what an atom would 'look' like.

Funky_Llama

Anyway, what that shows is what the electric field around an atom 'looks' like, not what an atom would look like.

Well, an atom doesn't have a constant shape as the electron's are all flying about anyway -- but this really gos back to the Sun analogy I mentioned earlier -- you're still 'seeing' the atom.

There's no such thing as the surface of an atom though.

That's besides the point -- you can still see something without immediately seeing it, if that makes ense. :P

There's no such thing as the surface of an atom though.

That's besides the point -- you can still see something without immediately seeing it, if that makes ense. :P

MetalGear_Ninty

Also I don't follow your second point. O_o