Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This was pretty much the huge topic which got kdbuffalo/Conservative booted from wp.--PalMD-yada yada 04:41, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

I hope nobody minds that I am going to start my mining of my xtian science text in this article. It has a table of things the bible claimed that took "scientists" from 1600 to 3600 years to figure out in their godless, stumbling way. I'm building the table off-site cause it's easier, it will be up soon though. humanbe in 13:29, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Contents

[edit] Might want to do a side-by-side of...

...http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.- 74.73.167.218 00:22, 17 October 2007 (EDT) - αmεσ (pirate)

[edit] It's not 1500 or 300BC.

The Greeks knew that Earth was a sphere since at least 200 BC, and possibly before. Eratosthenes used a few observations, an assumption of geometric regularity, and simple math to calculate its circumference. He was rather off by modern standards, but given what he had to work with it was as precise as anyone was prepared to get. He is credited as the first person to do this, but that's only because we cannot name an older account.

Earth's sphericity would make intuitive sense to any culture that had villages on a body of water more than 12 miles wide, since you can see its curvature under circumstances like that. Then there's Earth's shadow on the moon, which at least proves that Earth is a discus if not a full sphere.

It is a widespread modern myth that the ancient consensus of Earth's shape was anything but an orb. There are some major exceptions (ancient China), but the geometry of our planet is largely self-evident. I'm not sure where this myth came from, but it sure is a popular notion today that Columbus sailed west to prove Earth was a sphere. In reality, Columbus had a very unrealistic idea of Earth's circumference compared to other people of his day, and believed he could reach Asia before he and his crew starved to death. And if the Americas hadn't intervened, he would have done just that. But Columbus was more myth than man, and any story told about him today is most likely not true. We don't even know his real name or genealogy. --76.217.94.92 15:15, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

True - didn't you see the footote [5] These numbers should be 300 BCE, 400 - AKjeldsen says this is the "second most common myth in history!" SusanG  ContribsTalk 16:08, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Does this count?

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Suggesting time dilation is somehow possible, without specifying how to or how much (apparently God is travelling at Godspeed to experience such phenomenon as time dilation) ThiehAsk me for relationship advice 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Only if the Xtians claim it. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems like they actually did, as someone pointed out. Ouch. ThiehAsk me for relationship advice 13:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Further bullshitting exposed. ThiehWhat is NOT going on? 13:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cut from article for better placement

"Time dilation is possible[cut 1]

2 Peters 3:8[cut 2]

1905 CE(speed) or 1916 CE(gravitational), 1745-1856[cut 3]

The whole thing is pretty much quoted out of context. The guy being debunked here[cut 4] made the video private, after intense challenges raised from the community. May have laid the foundation of the phrase Godspeed."

This was added to a section that is rebutting a book that it has nothing to do with. Please find better home. Also, before adding, please try to turn it into sentences. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] cut

  1. See [1], [2] and [3]
  2. 2 Peter 3:8
    But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

[edit] Citation needed

AFAIK, the Bible had a very low success rate when predicting events that had already happened. Ignoring semantics, such as predicting the past, used as a tool for "prediction" of the past the Bible is a blunt tool indeed, since no such "prediction" is very accurately described. I think only the predictor can actually predict the past, and then only such events that are recorded in detail. Sorry to say "predicting" the past is as hard as predicting the future. Rursus dixit (yada³!) 09:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] I put a sorta "summary" in

But it think it would be better as part of the document itself. I didn't really understand the section on "equivocality and the bible", but i think that section could be more blunt - then we could remove the tripe I added. Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Real Biblical scientific foreknowledge - the morton's fork

From the global flood and all the creationism pieces we can tell the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for male within human is Noah, while the Female counterpart would go pretty much back to Eve. Ergo, Bible predicts that the MRCA for male in mankind is more recent than the MRCA of female. (This is probably verified through wp as wp:Mitochondrial Eve come before wp:Y-chromosomal Adam). However since evolution has to be assumed, this is probably moot. ThiehTK = Terry Koeckritz 00:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wut? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Gaps between science and the Bible

Is this wiki based on biased people who try and 'scratch any bit of meat off the bone' as it were? I mean, the sarcasm in this page is truly obnoxious and unnecessary, neither does it make any of the pages look professional and serious. There is a fine line between a jokey sentence and sarcastic aggression. Most notably though this is on every page on this site.

It's also interesting to note that you take a stance on a very one-sided view. The biggest example is the choice to interpret a scripture and to understand its many interpretations that it could mean. The ones that do not make sense AND the ones that could make sense should be discussed in depth. But even the one single view you take to look at a verse, you do not even mention the possibility of other meanings? The reason I relate this to the one section is because of the comments, 'Also note that the Bible says the Earth has corners, which requires a flat square or cube.' This is a great example, feels like it's written by a 8 year old who is only stating the obvious. Do you think this is meant literally, after it had first said it was a sphere in shape? Take my phrase above also, do I literally mean you are trying to scratch meat off a bone? Of course not.

This wiki is not very rational is it?

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
That said, your criticism of that stautement is pretty valid; however, if the Bible is supposed to be scientific, it shouldn't have errors/misinterpretable statements like that. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 03:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
What? You are saying that our possible misinterpretations, or to put it more clearly, one certain view on a selected point, then solely proves the Bible as unscientific? If we do not know the real meanings, or correct way of interpreting a scripture, how can you say anything you refer to from the Bible as valid, for it would just be a collective groups' opinion on the matter.
It would be like taking quotes from one of Obama's speech to show that he is racist etc. Cherry picking the statements which would be out-of-context to provide as 'evidence'. This is clear with the failed prophecies in the Bible page.— Unsigned, by: 92.2.39.164 / talk / contribs 19:54, 4 September 2014
I'm not sure if this is what FuzzyCatPotato was getting at, but from my point of view, if a piece of writing is vague and/or ambiguous enough to be up to interpretation, then it (more or less by definition) doesn't offer any real scientific predictive power. The moment you say, "Well, I can interpret the Bible in a way that makes this foreknowledge accurate," you're now colouring your view through hindsight bias. The fact that this article can find easily plausible interpretations that don't show scientific foreknowledge is enough to show that the Bible doesn't have any predictive power in any kind of scientific regard. - Grant (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The bible states the Earth is a circle, though even if it did state the earth is a sphere (which it technically ISN"T a perfect sphere), common sense (anyone with a boat) could figure this out.--TemplarJLS (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that "1 possible error = Bible unscientific". I'm saying that errors like this and vague statements like this should not be in scientific texts, which undermines the Bible as a scientific text. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support