Because the "method" you are using is intellectually dishonest. The only way this would be impressive would be if you used some sort of interpretation that had predictive power. You are making all of your interpretations retroactively, thus trying to develop nonfalsifiable claims, which is entirely unscientific.
The TITLE is, Bible and Science. What is being EXPLORED in this thread, is explained in the OP! Just because the title says Bible and Science doesn't mean there are no parameters - that you can be all over the map!
I know the subject must be difficult for some atheists to entertain. I suppose you got nothing with any substance to contribute to this thread.....
To assume that someone is an atheist just because they are educated is a mistake.. The Bible was never intended to be science or history.. and you don't have to torture scripture .. The premise of your thread is childish. Its like claiming its been 4,776 years since creation or that anyone ever lived 500 years. You would have to reject education and science and archaeology and park your brain at the door to believe it was ever intended to be read literally.
It has nothing to do with entertainment. Your argument is intellectually dishonest. You pick and choose your verses (even worse, you do so after the fact) and then pretend that this is somehow profound, despite the claim itself being as far from scientific as mentally possible. For a statement to be scientifically valuable, it has to offer a prediction before the fact and it has to be falsifiable. Your use of the Bible is precisely the opposite of scientific inquiry. It couldn't possibly be further from it.
So you admit that your claim that you don't pick and choose is false. Your method is as follows: 1) Start with the assumption that the Bible is accurate. 2) Compare the Bible to scientific observation without offering any predictions. 3) When science contradicts the Bible, claim that those verses were just symbolic. 4) When they mesh, claim this is somehow remarkable. This is entirely irrational and intellectually dishonest. It is nothing more than turning cognitive bias into a "method."
Who said anything about entertainment? I said, "I know the subject must be difficult for some atheists to entertain." Here's how I used that word, "entertain." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entertain Did I say the verse are "scientifically valuable?" I never claimed the Bible was meant to be a science book! It just so happens that the Bible has made some claims, and had given some descriptions of the universe - which turned out to be scientifically confirmed by MODERN science! Boy....without that kind of technology that made it possible....we'd still be ignorant of some facts that's been written thousands of years ago! Imagine that......
Go back and review this thread from the very beginning. Read and UNDERSTAND the OP - that means, my very first post! I merely gave verses that have been confirmed, or supported by science. There's no "hokus-pokus," or any dishonesty involved. I think you're in a state of denial - that happened to some atheists in other forums, you know. That's understandable - what with the huge implication this have on atheism!
Well.....we've got a problem here. When you've demonstrated how you misunderstood my usage of the simple term, "entertain"..........and the way you use "prediction" and "predictability"........and, there were other times too that showed something's-lost-in-translation-with-you....kinda like little red flags popping at some corners.... .....why should I take your attempt at rebuttals seriously? I didn't mean that as an insult. I don't have the time to waste.
I comprehend just fine. I just also comprehend that cherry picking verses and making nonfalsifiable claims backed only be cognitive bias are incompatible with scientific thought, and that perfectly describes the OP. The fact that your only answer to these observations is personal attacks and not actual debate and discussion only further confirms that fact.
Ehh? You attacked me by saying I'm being dishonest! FYI, you're being dishonest when you pretend to know what you're talking about! It's easy to see through your posts - you're trying to "wing" it. You think I can't tell? Anyway.....just like Margot, I'll have to ignore you until you've got something worth responding to.
See previous post. These aren't difficult or even controversial concepts in science. Falsifiability matters in science. Making predictions matters in science. Meanwhile, you offer only ad hominems in light of these very basic observations.
No, I said the argument was intellectually dishonest. That's not the same thing as personal dishonesty. It is about the integrity of the argument and the thought process, not of the person. You can't tell me this is the first time you've encountered the concept. Ignore all facts that disagree with your desired conclusion. Yes, that's very fitting with your approach to the Bible.
Same thing! Who gave the argument? The argument? And btw.....that's an ignorant response. See what I mean? Review my posts, and you'll see I tried to be objective, and unlike you - I had given credible sources to support my claims. Now.....I have to ask: do you really know what intellectual dishonesty is? Honestly? Cheers.
No, you haven't. That was the point of my arguments from the beginning. Your OP isn't objective. I just gave you an explanation. If you think it is a personal attack, then no, you don't know what it means. It is in regards to the integrity of the train of thought and the argument presented, not the character of the person.
Okay....I'll entertain your argument. Explain why you don't find the OP objective. What part of it isn't objective? Read it.
The fact that you cherry pick verses, you don't make any predictions ahead of time (only "predictions" after the fact), that you retroactively declare verses "symbolic" if the facts contradict them, and that this makes the whole thing unfalsifiable.
I "cherry-picked" the verses that has been confirmed, or supported by science! Of course I had to "cherry-pick" them - after all, the subject is about verses that are in-lined with evolution (which have been confirmed or supported by science)! You came out with global flood, and I told you it wasn't brought up by me! Now you know why I didn't bring it up? Do you get it now? You can't bring up just about any verses that have not been given here, and use them for arguments! This subject has a qualifier - verses that are in lined with evolution, scientific discoveries, and theories. First of all....they're not predictions! They're claims, or just statements. Before science had confirmed or supported them, they could've been figures of speech. But thanks to science, now we know that they can also be taken literally! Since this subject is dealing with verses that are confirmed or supported by science - of course they're given after the fact - after the fact of either discovery, or confirmation, or support! They have to! Oh boy.....we're done!
Which is why it isn't objective. You exclude anything that contradicts. You purposefully cherry pick. Hey . . . I can predict the future! Well, as long as you ignore all of the times I'm wrong and only cherry pick the times I'm right. *Sad trombone*. You've gone from claiming that you aren't picking and choosing to saying that of course your are picking and choosing. So I guess that is progress.
Actually we don't know the universe had a beginning. The big bang only explains the expansion of the universe but before a certain point we don't actually know what happened. Some scientists believe it popped out of nothing, and others that it was transformed from some pre-existing material, or maybe the universe has been eternally expanding and contracting. And even if the universe had a beginning according to science it is just the current bubble of space-time and we don't actually about the possible multiverse or other space-times.
Yes, no one knows what was before the Big Bang, however just like The NAS had explained, the Big Bang is the best theory there is. https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html There are a lot of theories that are being given that suggest the universe might not have had a beginning .......but that's what they are: extrapolations. However, the consensus right now is that the universe had a beginning. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/ https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
Religion and space science - the two biggest confidence tricks perpetrated upon the masses in the history of mankind.
