[Locked] Is Scientist really proving the Bible to be wrong?
0
I don't see why religious people are arguing with scientist when scientist are proving the worlds of the Bible to be true.
From a site I found, here are the days of creation and some scientific facts along with them
The First Day
The first recorded Words of God that we have are "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3 NIV). The sun was already shining brightly, but God made the earth's thick new atmosphere allow diffuse light to penetrate to the surface. And so it was that the light was made separate from darkness. The first day of earth's creation was literally the first "day" as someone on earth's surface would experience it - a period of opaque light, and a period of darkness. (Genesis 1:3-5)
The Second Day
The separation of the waters. There was yet no liquid water, no oceans. All of the water was in the form of a vapor, a worldwide super-fog, extending a number of kilometers/miles up from the very hot (above the boiling temperature of water) bare-rock earth's surface (the earth's core remains molten right to the present day). God's "hovering over the waters" in verse 2 describes His being above that gaseous-water atmosphere, not a liquid ocean. God then caused most of the water to condense onto the cooling earth which simultaneously formed a whole-planet ocean and cleared the sky. (Genesis 1:6-8)
The Third Day
The first appearance of dry ground. The further cooling of the surface set in motion a process of natural contraction, uplifting and motion of the crust (the process continues today, called "plate tectonics"). The earth changed from a smooth one-level molten "cue ball" to a planet with an irregular surface with ocean basins and continental landmasses. With dry ground available, the first plants were made to grow in great abundance. (Genesis 1:9-13)
The Fourth Day
With the sky now clear, the sun, moon and stars were dependably visible. They were to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years." The sun marked the day (sunset to sunset), the moon the month (new moon to new moon), and the stars the seasons (constellations are seen in particular seasons e.g. "Orion" is visible in winter in the northern hemisphere, which is summer in the southern hemisphere). (Genesis 1:14-19)
The Fifth Day
Great numbers of birds and sea creatures. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." (Genesis 1:20-23)
The Sixth Day
Vast numbers of land animals. Man. From the man, woman (humans today are just now discovering how to genetically alter fertilized embryos, and even to create one human from the tissue of another - known as "cloning"). (Genesis 1:24-31)
The Seventh Day
The Sabbath Day. "By the seventh day God had finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it He rested [or ceased] from all the work of creating that He had done." The day that is the basis for The Fourth Commandment. (Genesis 2:2-3)
The question of whether the seven days of creation were literal days, or symbolic of stages of development is actually irrelevant to the undeniable reality that Creation happened. The observable universe, the earth beneath our feet, and every one of us exist. Who needs more proof than that?
Website:http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/sevncrea.htm
The question still remains, has Science really proving that religion is wrong and, has religion really proving that science is wrong?
Fun fact: Some people say that God is energy. It is said in the Bible that we are created from his image and guess what,.... we are made of energy.
From a site I found, here are the days of creation and some scientific facts along with them
The First Day
The first recorded Words of God that we have are "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3 NIV). The sun was already shining brightly, but God made the earth's thick new atmosphere allow diffuse light to penetrate to the surface. And so it was that the light was made separate from darkness. The first day of earth's creation was literally the first "day" as someone on earth's surface would experience it - a period of opaque light, and a period of darkness. (Genesis 1:3-5)
The Second Day
The separation of the waters. There was yet no liquid water, no oceans. All of the water was in the form of a vapor, a worldwide super-fog, extending a number of kilometers/miles up from the very hot (above the boiling temperature of water) bare-rock earth's surface (the earth's core remains molten right to the present day). God's "hovering over the waters" in verse 2 describes His being above that gaseous-water atmosphere, not a liquid ocean. God then caused most of the water to condense onto the cooling earth which simultaneously formed a whole-planet ocean and cleared the sky. (Genesis 1:6-8)
The Third Day
The first appearance of dry ground. The further cooling of the surface set in motion a process of natural contraction, uplifting and motion of the crust (the process continues today, called "plate tectonics"). The earth changed from a smooth one-level molten "cue ball" to a planet with an irregular surface with ocean basins and continental landmasses. With dry ground available, the first plants were made to grow in great abundance. (Genesis 1:9-13)
The Fourth Day
With the sky now clear, the sun, moon and stars were dependably visible. They were to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years." The sun marked the day (sunset to sunset), the moon the month (new moon to new moon), and the stars the seasons (constellations are seen in particular seasons e.g. "Orion" is visible in winter in the northern hemisphere, which is summer in the southern hemisphere). (Genesis 1:14-19)
The Fifth Day
Great numbers of birds and sea creatures. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." (Genesis 1:20-23)
The Sixth Day
Vast numbers of land animals. Man. From the man, woman (humans today are just now discovering how to genetically alter fertilized embryos, and even to create one human from the tissue of another - known as "cloning"). (Genesis 1:24-31)
The Seventh Day
The Sabbath Day. "By the seventh day God had finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it He rested [or ceased] from all the work of creating that He had done." The day that is the basis for The Fourth Commandment. (Genesis 2:2-3)
The question of whether the seven days of creation were literal days, or symbolic of stages of development is actually irrelevant to the undeniable reality that Creation happened. The observable universe, the earth beneath our feet, and every one of us exist. Who needs more proof than that?
Website:http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/sevncrea.htm
The question still remains, has Science really proving that religion is wrong and, has religion really proving that science is wrong?
Fun fact: Some people say that God is energy. It is said in the Bible that we are created from his image and guess what,.... we are made of energy.
0
Science isn't trying to prove that Religion is wrong. Most scientists realize that Religion is a big part of humanity and is one of the most important parts of our lives. Whether we realize it or not, we all are religious in our own ways, and we all believe in our own gods, even if you are an atheist. Just because you try to deny the existence of a god doesn't mean that you don't have some belief in a kind of higher existence.
Science is part of a larger equilibrium that balances on Art, Religion, and Science. They all are reflections of each other, yet none deny the others existence completely(of course there are always dissidents).
Science is part of a larger equilibrium that balances on Art, Religion, and Science. They all are reflections of each other, yet none deny the others existence completely(of course there are always dissidents).
0
NOPE.
Science isn't focused on proving religious beliefs right or wrong.
And it's for better that it doesn't try anyways, "true believers" are immune to facts and reason.
But scientific facts do show up that discredit holy books.(evolution/big bang/4m years old fossils/etc)
Then in comes religion to defend their beliefs with logical fallacies, questioning of morals or even questioning results.
Quite funny to observe honestly.
Science isn't focused on proving religious beliefs right or wrong.
And it's for better that it doesn't try anyways, "true believers" are immune to facts and reason.
But scientific facts do show up that discredit holy books.(evolution/big bang/4m years old fossils/etc)
Then in comes religion to defend their beliefs with logical fallacies, questioning of morals or even questioning results.
Quite funny to observe honestly.
0
PCheaf wrote...
NOPE.Science isn't focused on proving religious beliefs right or wrong.
And it's for better that it doesn't try anyways, "true believers" are immune to facts and reason.
But scientific facts do show up that discredit holy books.(evolution/big bang/4m years old fossils/etc)
Then in comes religion to defend their beliefs with logical fallacies, questioning of morals or even questioning results.
Quite funny to observe honestly.
0
animefreak_usa
Child of Samael
I heard a Catholic priest Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, commenting that all of the scriptures are written around/between 2000 BC and 150 AD, and modern science has only come into existence in the last couple hundred years, and thus the scriptures in no way contain any science and should not be taught as such. Pope John Paul II declared that: “New scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.” Science has no part in religion since one is driven by faith and the other by ideas and fact. Can one find a happy middle between fact and thought.
I believe in evolution, sexual equality and other non christian idead and still believe in a god and a guy named jesus.. because we know that the bible was written by faith and not fact... was there a guy named jesus.. maybe. Was he the son of god.. meh who knows. Are you insane for believing in something not proven... no because faith and logic isn't suppose to be mixed.
Can some stuff in the bible be proven by science... sure because the people who wrote it lived on earth so if you found a town lost to the ages that was mention in the bible then yeah.. shit like that can and will happen... like the panda's... before the early 20th century no one outside of some Chinese people seen a half white, half black bear unless they read or hear tales and stories of it...
I believe in evolution, sexual equality and other non christian idead and still believe in a god and a guy named jesus.. because we know that the bible was written by faith and not fact... was there a guy named jesus.. maybe. Was he the son of god.. meh who knows. Are you insane for believing in something not proven... no because faith and logic isn't suppose to be mixed.
Can some stuff in the bible be proven by science... sure because the people who wrote it lived on earth so if you found a town lost to the ages that was mention in the bible then yeah.. shit like that can and will happen... like the panda's... before the early 20th century no one outside of some Chinese people seen a half white, half black bear unless they read or hear tales and stories of it...
0
The First Day
When the Earth was created, there was no atmosphere. Earth enjoyed millions of years worth of sunlight before any atmosphere formed to block direct sunlight, but it still received indirect sunlight through the clouds.
The Second Day
During the period when Earth's atmosphere was very thick and dense, boiling temperature would have been much higher than it is today due to the pressure being higher so you probably would have found large lakes of boiling water, though I admit that the majority of water would be in the atmosphere. God didn't need to cause the water to condense because it would have happened naturally without any assistance. The Earth would have slowly cooled and provided a suitable temperature for water to come down in larger and larger amounts.
The Third Day
After the appearance of dry ground, life still would not have appeared on land until much later. In the ocean, small organisms similar to algae would have evolved to use a process called photosynthesis,though this does not produce oxygen at first. Even when oxygen was produced, it was poisonous to many early organisms. The creation of oxygen would have then lead to the creation of the Ozone Layer which shielded the Earth's surface from deadly ultraviolet rays. The first fungi would appear some time after. Fungi are not plants. Footprints have been found from some time after that indicating that early animal explorations may have predated the development of terrestrial plants.
The Fourth Day
Pretty basic stuff. Even if God hadn't been around, they still would have marked them since the sun has to rise and set due to Earths rotation (unless Earths rotation had synchronized itself with it's orbit). The month is always tied to the moon, of course. People have always used the lunar cycle as a form to tell time well before the bible was around. Had the moon been closer or further away from us, the length of the month would be different than it is now. The stars help tell the seasons only because of Earth's axis being off center. If it was perfectly centered, there would be no seasons and the stars would stay in the field of vision or either the northern or southern hemispheres.
The Fifth Day
Reproduction. Whether it be sexual or asexual, it's been going on since the first single celled organisms swam in the oceans.
The Sixth Day
Once again, reproduction. It happens to sea creatures and birds, so why not to land animals? Human cloning has not happened yet, for it is illegal and controversial. Animal cloning cannot produce a creature of a different gender than that of the animal being cloned.
The Seventh Day
Nothing to say here as it does not talk about Earth's creation.
If the Seven Days really did happen, someone made a mistake when writing down the details (unless all of scientific research done regarding the origins of the Earth is wrong).
Also, according to religion, isn't Earth only a few thousand years old?
A link I find funny
When the Earth was created, there was no atmosphere. Earth enjoyed millions of years worth of sunlight before any atmosphere formed to block direct sunlight, but it still received indirect sunlight through the clouds.
The Second Day
During the period when Earth's atmosphere was very thick and dense, boiling temperature would have been much higher than it is today due to the pressure being higher so you probably would have found large lakes of boiling water, though I admit that the majority of water would be in the atmosphere. God didn't need to cause the water to condense because it would have happened naturally without any assistance. The Earth would have slowly cooled and provided a suitable temperature for water to come down in larger and larger amounts.
The Third Day
After the appearance of dry ground, life still would not have appeared on land until much later. In the ocean, small organisms similar to algae would have evolved to use a process called photosynthesis,though this does not produce oxygen at first. Even when oxygen was produced, it was poisonous to many early organisms. The creation of oxygen would have then lead to the creation of the Ozone Layer which shielded the Earth's surface from deadly ultraviolet rays. The first fungi would appear some time after. Fungi are not plants. Footprints have been found from some time after that indicating that early animal explorations may have predated the development of terrestrial plants.
The Fourth Day
Pretty basic stuff. Even if God hadn't been around, they still would have marked them since the sun has to rise and set due to Earths rotation (unless Earths rotation had synchronized itself with it's orbit). The month is always tied to the moon, of course. People have always used the lunar cycle as a form to tell time well before the bible was around. Had the moon been closer or further away from us, the length of the month would be different than it is now. The stars help tell the seasons only because of Earth's axis being off center. If it was perfectly centered, there would be no seasons and the stars would stay in the field of vision or either the northern or southern hemispheres.
The Fifth Day
Reproduction. Whether it be sexual or asexual, it's been going on since the first single celled organisms swam in the oceans.
The Sixth Day
Once again, reproduction. It happens to sea creatures and birds, so why not to land animals? Human cloning has not happened yet, for it is illegal and controversial. Animal cloning cannot produce a creature of a different gender than that of the animal being cloned.
The Seventh Day
Nothing to say here as it does not talk about Earth's creation.
If the Seven Days really did happen, someone made a mistake when writing down the details (unless all of scientific research done regarding the origins of the Earth is wrong).
Also, according to religion, isn't Earth only a few thousand years old?
A link I find funny
0
What do they mean when they talk of days because a day in what time scale because the earth had not been made yet. A day to an immortal omnipresent being could be a very long time.
1
As someone who really love science, this topic is really embarassing to read. I always found the part of God "creating" light to be hilarious as hell. It's sad seeing creationists really grasping for straws.
0
Its possible to find middle ground
general compromise between religion and science
Both have their points in order
The earth is 4 billion years old...
and yet, like zero said, it should only be a few thousand according to scriptures
But if science holds true
where did our sophisticated thinking and moral sense develop from?
general compromise between religion and science
Both have their points in order
The earth is 4 billion years old...
and yet, like zero said, it should only be a few thousand according to scriptures
But if science holds true
where did our sophisticated thinking and moral sense develop from?
0
Zero_Hour wrote...
The First DayWhen the Earth was created, there was no atmosphere. Earth enjoyed millions of years worth of sunlight before any atmosphere formed to block direct sunlight, but it still received indirect sunlight through the clouds.
The Second Day
During the period when Earth's atmosphere was very thick and dense, boiling temperature would have been much higher than it is today due to the pressure being higher so you probably would have found large lakes of boiling water, though I admit that the majority of water would be in the atmosphere. God didn't need to cause the water to condense because it would have happened naturally without any assistance. The Earth would have slowly cooled and provided a suitable temperature for water to come down in larger and larger amounts.
The Third Day
After the appearance of dry ground, life still would not have appeared on land until much later. In the ocean, small organisms similar to algae would have evolved to use a process called photosynthesis,though this does not produce oxygen at first. Even when oxygen was produced, it was poisonous to many early organisms. The creation of oxygen would have then lead to the creation of the Ozone Layer which shielded the Earth's surface from deadly ultraviolet rays. The first fungi would appear some time after. Fungi are not plants. Footprints have been found from some time after that indicating that early animal explorations may have predated the development of terrestrial plants.
The Fourth Day
Pretty basic stuff. Even if God hadn't been around, they still would have marked them since the sun has to rise and set due to Earths rotation (unless Earths rotation had synchronized itself with it's orbit). The month is always tied to the moon, of course. People have always used the lunar cycle as a form to tell time well before the bible was around. Had the moon been closer or further away from us, the length of the month would be different than it is now. The stars help tell the seasons only because of Earth's axis being off center. If it was perfectly centered, there would be no seasons and the stars would stay in the field of vision or either the northern or southern hemispheres.
The Fifth Day
Reproduction. Whether it be sexual or asexual, it's been going on since the first single celled organisms swam in the oceans.
The Sixth Day
Once again, reproduction. It happens to sea creatures and birds, so why not to land animals? Human cloning has not happened yet, for it is illegal and controversial. Animal cloning cannot produce a creature of a different gender than that of the animal being cloned.
The Seventh Day
Nothing to say here as it does not talk about Earth's creation.
If the Seven Days really did happen, someone made a mistake when writing down the details (unless all of scientific research done regarding the origins of the Earth is wrong).
Also, according to religion, isn't Earth only a few thousand years old?
A link I find funny
The Bible never says how old the Earth is and our calculations is not to say right. Days may mean years, years may mean decades. The Bible said God created the universe in 7 day....do you really think it was 7 days? Do not think that if the Bible says 1 day then it means 1 day in modern time? May I remind you that this prediction if any is predicted after the Bible is translated. We are not sure about that.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
For the love of all that is holy.
Science and Religion are two entirely separate concepts that use entirely separate forms of support. You cannot use one for the other and they exist for different reasons. They both have their place and just because you have one does not mean you have to sacrifice from the other. In fact, it's actually best to embrace both as they give you a more full answer to life.
Anyone who feels it has to be one or the other is beyond a fool and anyone who feels it's weak to have one is devastatingly close-minded.
Science and Religion are two entirely separate concepts that use entirely separate forms of support. You cannot use one for the other and they exist for different reasons. They both have their place and just because you have one does not mean you have to sacrifice from the other. In fact, it's actually best to embrace both as they give you a more full answer to life.
Anyone who feels it has to be one or the other is beyond a fool and anyone who feels it's weak to have one is devastatingly close-minded.
0
Age wrote...
What do they mean when they talk of days because a day in what time scale because the earth had not been made yet. A day to an immortal omnipresent being could be a very long time.Days could mean decades.
0
PCheaf wrote...
NOPE.Science isn't focused on proving religious beliefs right or wrong.
And it's for better that it doesn't try anyways, "true believers" are immune to facts and reason.
But scientific facts do show up that discredit holy books.(evolution/big bang/4m years old fossils/etc)
Then in comes religion to defend their beliefs with logical fallacies, questioning of morals or even questioning results.
Quite funny to observe honestly.
Evolution really doesn't discredit the Bible because the Bible says that there was man. It never said what man looked like. This is the reason why I find it funny when religious people and scientist argue about evolution.
0
"Is Scientists really proving the Bible to be right?"
What does that even mean. Is science trying to prove the Bible is correct? If that's what you mean, I'd say, no, not really.
What does that even mean. Is science trying to prove the Bible is correct? If that's what you mean, I'd say, no, not really.
0
gizgal wrote...
"Is Scientists really proving the Bible to be right?"What does that even mean. Is science trying to prove the Bible is correct? If that's what you mean, I'd say, no, not really.
I think the wrong terms. What I was trying to get at is the fact that scientific discoveries and theories are indirectly backing up the words in the Bible.
0
I think the wrong terms. What I was trying to get at is the fact that scientific discoveries and theories are indirectly backing up the words in the Bible.
If that's what you're trying to ask? No. Only if you do mental backflips and decide not to take the bible literally true, and always do ex post facto iextrapolations to scripture, turning it into completely vague and nondescriptive texts that are hardly recognizable from their original.
There is nothing the science could ever say that would ever shake a "true believer"'s faith. A person who feels they truly believe in the bible can turn this story
"Elijah left the town and 42 children did follow and laugh at him, yelling 'Go out ye baldy!' Elijah looked to them, and cursed them in God's name. God then sent two she-bears to tear apart the children, and Elijah continued on his way."
Into a positive thing.
0
BigLundi wrote...
I think the wrong terms. What I was trying to get at is the fact that scientific discoveries and theories are indirectly backing up the words in the Bible.
If that's what you're trying to ask? No. Only if you do mental backflips and decide not to take the bible literally true, and always do ex post facto iextrapolations to scripture, turning it into completely vague and nondescriptive texts that are hardly recognizable from their original.
There is nothing the science could ever say that would ever shake a "true believer"'s faith. A person who feels they truly believe in the bible can turn this story
"Elijah left the town and 42 children did follow and laugh at him, yelling 'Go out ye baldy!' Elijah looked to them, and cursed them in God's name. God then sent two she-bears to tear apart the children, and Elijah continued on his way."
Into a positive thing.
If you take the bible literally, you will not get the messages in it. And I like when you say there is nothing that science could ever say that would ever shake a "true believer"'s faith because this proves a point I have about there being less actually Christians in the world than we claim. I really hate when Christians kill and try to justify it by claiming it was fit in the eyes of God. Those who kill "in the name of God." If they were really Christians, they will know that "thou shall not kill." Also those who fight others because they do not share the same religious in my book are narrow minded people. I believe that lots of people nowadays claim to be religious just to fit into today's society.
0
the unknown wrote...
If you take the bible literally, you will not get the messages in it. And I like when you say there is nothing that science could ever say that would ever shake a "true believer"'s faith because this proves a point I have about there being less actually Christians in the world than we claim. I really hate when Christians kill and try to justify it by claiming it was fit in the eyes of God. Those who kill "in the name of God." If they were really Christians, they will know that "thou shall not kill." Also those who fight others because they do not share the same religious in my book are narrow minded people. I believe that lots of people nowadays claim to be religious just to fit into today's society.
If I take the bible literally, I will not get the messages in it? What messages? the messages you want people to take from it?
If I take the bible literally, I find that it's wrong on almost every issue. And whatever it's right on, is usually something trivial like, "Make sure the roof you build is hardy."
0
BigLundi wrote...
the unknown wrote...
If you take the bible literally, you will not get the messages in it. And I like when you say there is nothing that science could ever say that would ever shake a "true believer"'s faith because this proves a point I have about there being less actually Christians in the world than we claim. I really hate when Christians kill and try to justify it by claiming it was fit in the eyes of God. Those who kill "in the name of God." If they were really Christians, they will know that "thou shall not kill." Also those who fight others because they do not share the same religious in my book are narrow minded people. I believe that lots of people nowadays claim to be religious just to fit into today's society.
If I take the bible literally, I will not get the messages in it? What messages? the messages you want people to take from it?
If I take the bible literally, I find that it's wrong on almost every issue. And whatever it's right on, is usually something trivial like, "Make sure the roof you build is hardy."
Which Bible have you been reading? That why you should not take it literally because if you take it literally, you gain a specific perspective of it rather than looking at the whole content. It is like looking at a small part rather than the big picture.
0
Zero_Hour wrote...
Also, according to religion, isn't Earth only a few thousand years old?according to the genealogy of the Bible, Adam was created in 4004 B.C. This does not mean that the world is only 6000+ years old; it just means that the human race is 6000+ years old.
some people believe that there is a great time gap between verse 1 and 2, possibly millions of years.
Genesis 1:1-5 wrote...
just a fun fact: in John Milton's book "paradise lost", Milton describes a huge war between Satan's army and God's army, that took place in this time gap. The aftermath of the battle caused the earth to be formless and empty.