Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not a single scientific discovery has ever disputed an important biblical fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

dis·pute
v. tr.

1. To argue about; debate.

----

Theory of evolution.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not a single scientific discovery has ever disputed an important biblical fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Trick question. There are no important biblical facts. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

The complete lack of empirical evidence for the existence of a soul, Heaven or Hell.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not a single scientific discovery has ever disputed an important biblical fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Age of the earth.
Origin of man.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
complete lack of empirical evidence for the existence of a soul, Heaven or Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think these qualify as "scientific discoveries"

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Age of the earth.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Origin of man.

[/ QUOTE ]

To what extent are these scientific discoveries as opposed to scientific theories? And to what extent do they dispute an important biblical fact?

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And to what extent do they dispute an important biblical fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should start by listing the top 10 or so "important biblical facts".

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not a single scientific discovery has ever disputed an important biblical fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That may well be true, how about biblical fantasies though?

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
complete lack of empirical evidence for the existence of a soul, Heaven or Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think these qualify as "scientific discoveries"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but the apparent absence of their existence, and complete lack of evidence or reason to suspect their existence should mean something to intelligent minds.

Another one
 

Repeated psychological evidence that shame relative to nudity is learned, not inherent.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

Perhaps you should stop posting like such a child, KipBond, and other posters won't be so apt to ignore you.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should stop posting like such a child, KipBond, and other posters won't be so apt to ignore you.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are a Christian? Jesus would be proud.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to what extent do they dispute an important biblical fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should start by listing the top 10 or so "important biblical facts".

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you didn't answer the question, I found the blog you got this statement from. In there, the author points out some of the "important biblical facts" that he thinks have not been disputed by scientific discoveries:

[ QUOTE ]
No new matter is being formed – Genesis 2:2, "By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Roundness of the earth – (Isaiah 40:22) “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. “

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Hydrologic cycle – (Ecclesiastes 1:7) “All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Gravitational field (Job 26:7)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Human body is made up of elements of the earth (Genesis 2:7)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Oceanic currents (Jonah 2:3)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Oceanic mountains are discovered 3,000 years before there was sonar or ocean mapping (Jonah 2:6)

[/ QUOTE ]

The author also makes some other claims that are... questionable:

[ QUOTE ]
The creation account of the universe is no longer considered preposterous in the scientific community as it was not that many years back.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You might have heard that the Bible is full of scientific errors, but contrary to what you have heard, no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible, in science, in history, or in any other subject

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
While the Bible is not a scientific textbook, it can be stated clearly that when the Bible does speak directly about matters of science, it speaks correctly

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Many principles of modern science were talked about in the Bible before they were discovered experimentally. Think about this: before we discovered certain things to be true, the Bible already recorded them as true

[/ QUOTE ]

(EDIT -- I forgot this very important one:)

[ QUOTE ]
Back in the Book of Genesis, 1:24, the Bible says that living creatures -- listen carefully -- will reproduce after their own kind, and only after their own kind. Of course, for the last 200 years, scientists with an evolutionary bent have been desperately trying to show evidence for any kind of reproduction that would indicate a gradual evolution from one lower kind of living thing to a higher form of living thing -- change within the species.

The whole concept of evolution depends on showing this kind of phenomenon. But listen to what paleontologist, Stephen J. Gould, recently wrote: "Species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they finally disappear." And he’s an agnostic scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that we know what the author the question was getting at, we can know how to address this question. I really like one thing the author wrote, and would ask him the same question:

[ QUOTE ]
How responsible is it to hold a position but never having done your homework?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
But listen to what paleontologist, Stephen J. Gould, recently wrote: "Species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they finally disappear." And he’s an agnostic scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is off topic... but... I had to mention this. While trying to find the context of Gould's quote, I came across the following sermons from 3 different people:

http://www.redlandbaptist.org/sermon...on20050925.htm
http://www.cityviewlubbock.org/sermon031404.html
http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermon....ributorID=5911

(Look at the Gould quote, and surrounding content in those sermons.)

I guess pastors (and religious bloggers) don't need to give credit to the person who actually came up with the content of their sermons. I'm still looking for the context of the Gould quote if anyone has any info on that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

Seems that the archeological evidence of the existence of contiguous cultures on every continent of the planet before, during and after the supposed great flood "disputes" this, but that may not be scientifical enough for some (the DEVIL planted that 3 thousand year old society to trick us!).

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

Where in the bible does it explain how dinosaurs ruled the earth millions of years before man. what about the fact that the first humans resembled apes more than God.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

I agree. Mainly because I believe the bible to be a narrative work not a factual or scientific work. At best, I think the important "facts" in the bible are ethical or metaphysical ones and I dont think science has disproved any of these (nor would it try).

I cant understand people treating the bible as a literal book. Creationism is silly whether it's called that or intelligent design.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. Mainly because I believe the bible to be a narrative work not a factual or scientific work. At best, I think the important "facts" in the bible are ethical or metaphysical ones and I dont think science has disproved any of these (nor would it try).

I cant understand people treating the bible as a literal book. Creationism is silly whether it's called that or intelligent design.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same here.

chez

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

you've seen God?

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still looking for the context of the Gould quote if anyone has any info on that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I can tell, it's made up.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

The quote comes from "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History vol. 86, 5, p. 14.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

This one is good too:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups." from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

This one is total [censored]...

[ QUOTE ]
No new matter is being formed – Genesis 2:2, "By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."

[/ QUOTE ]

New matter is formed all the time...and even destroyed...

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The quote comes from "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History vol. 86, 5, p. 14.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh. Thanks. It's ironic that the people who like quoting other sermons verbatim (while not giving credit), wouldn't be very good at quoting Gould verbatim.

So, yeah, he's talking about punctuated equilibrium v. gradualism. Quoting Gould to discredit Evolution, is like quoting Sklansky to discredit the importance of math in poker strategy. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. Mainly because I believe the bible to be a narrative work not a factual or scientific work. At best, I think the important "facts" in the bible are ethical or metaphysical ones and I dont think science has disproved any of these (nor would it try).


[/ QUOTE ]

This is more or less my sentiment.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree. Mainly because I believe the bible to be a narrative work not a factual or scientific work. At best, I think the important "facts" in the bible are ethical or metaphysical ones and I dont think science has disproved any of these (nor would it try).


[/ QUOTE ]

This is more or less my sentiment.

[/ QUOTE ]
It helps to understand this forum to realise that the theist side is dominated by literal christians and the anti-theist side by evidentialists.

chez

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not a single scientific discovery has ever disputed an important biblical fact.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I'm still trying to figure out what a "biblical fact" is. Is it something like:

- The Bible says "_____ is a fact", or
- The Bible says "_____", which happens to be a demonstratable fact?

Of course, it used to be considered "important" to believe in the Genesis account of creation, Noah's flood, Babel's tower, the exodus of Jews from Egypt, Joshua's sun, Solomon's "empire" ... Interestingly enough, these stop becoming "important" once science disputes them.

Oh, and as a Hydrologist I take issue with any claim that an observent Hebrew scholar noticing that rivers flow into an ocean that doesn't fill is somehow equivalent to describing the hydrological cycle. It's not.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

The Old Testament advocates slavery.

While this is an opinion rather than a fact, is the OP suggesting that he doesn't have satisfactory proof that slavery is wrong?

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
While this is an opinion rather than a fact, is the OP suggesting that he doesn't have satisfactory proof that slavery is wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

Come on now. Do you consider the occurence of slavery to be "an important Biblical fact" that is called into question by a scientific discovery?

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

No, as I said its an opinion, and I know not directly what was asked for, but the thought process is comparable:

The omnipotent word of God advocates slavery in the page of the bible just after the ten commandments. I think we all now agree slavery is wrong. So was God wrong? Or was the Bible wrong? Or are we all wrong now?

Either way something's wrong and the OP can't suggest the bible has never been shown to be wrong (unless we are all wrong now and we should in fact re-introduce hebrew slaves)