Bible Versus Science

[reskie22]

reading the bible to search the truth of science...

[robbietan]

 

 

This says it all...

 

one contains sentences for kids, the other contains sentences for adults

dunno which is for who, though....

[knoll1234]

both written by man.

Edited September 30, 2010 by knoll1234

[Husband's Lover]

i have faith in Bible but i believe in Science

[juan.delacruz.1898]

"The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

 

- Caesar Baronius

[B@tman]

Bible and Science are irreconcilable. Although science Is not perfect, it is the best tool we have.

Edited August 15, 2015 by hotpants_m14

[mtcnono]

My Personal Opinion:

 

1. The Thread Title "Bible vs Science" is not a good Title, its like saying that Bible is against Science. In fact there are many scientific knowledge that was mentioned in the Bible way before it was discovered by Scientists.

Ex.

- Isa. 40:22 - they already mentioned about the "Circle of the Earth" yet many scientists believe the Earth was Flat. The Author of the Book Isaiah was written about 8th Century BC, and was more than 400 Years earlier than Aristotle's and a thousand years before Columbus.

 

2. For those who would say that there are many contradictions in the Bible such as:

- Creation

- Exodus

- Etc..

Other So Called bible Prophets/Pastors just don't know how to read or interpret the Bible. Just Like the Creation in Genesis, other scientists do not agree that it took only 6 days. I would agree with the scientists that the Universe is at least 13.8 Billion years old or more. I also agree with the Bible, why? because if you read the Bible the Morning and Night have not yet been created so who's day was it being mentioned? the Days was from God's point of View; Just like Earth is calculated as 24 hours per Day, while Venus on the Other hand is 5,832 hours per Day; So the a Day is different on many perspectives.

Another is the Exodus, Scientists/Historians have already made some significant findings about this, though still inconclusive,

watch this -> www.youtube.com/watch?v=sawWSvHjqEE

 

3. I do not claim that all things mentioned in the Bible are 100% True or accurate, remember, the Bible was written way back before, so depending on the knowledge of the author as well as the current rate of understanding of the People the book was written for, they wrote the Bible based on those perspectives. Its like writing a Grade 6 Book, you don't put College Math on a Grade 1 Math book, since at that time Grade 6 was already hard to understand; So the writers of the Bible wrote what was easier to understand on that point in time. Just like before, people do not understand Eclipse so writers may interpret it in a different manner that how we interpret eclipse now.

 

4. Bible and Science are the same, the same where in my point of view? Others may see and list the contradictions in the Bible, but to my knowledge there are more contradictions in Science that it is in the Bible, because there are more Theories as well as contradicting Theories out there than the contradictions in the Bible. Others may call it "Contradictions" but I call it theories, and even though Bible has many Theories/Contradictions I believe there will come a time that it will make sense, just like what Historians discovered in Exodus. And just like in Science, there are a mountain of theories out there, and surely enough 100 year or 1000 years from now, many of those will be proven, disputed and even explained why their first assumption was written in that manner, while current proofs say otherwise.

 

I write this for those who believe in both the Bible and Science. Not for those who want to have Bible and Science battle it out, because for me, its like having to say History vs Math or History vs Science. The Bible is part of History, there are things written in history books way before, that are not true, as well as unproven, yet they do not make History versus Science.

 

So whether you believe on what I say or not, it is up to you guys, just sharing my thoughts about the Topic.

Edited August 21, 2015 by mtcnono

[121304]

I believe that the Bible contains truths that can lead man to obtain eternal life in the next. While science seeks to know the patterns & operations of the natural world which in turn aids mankind to preserve, repair and improve life here on earth.

[airport-noo]

^ best tool for what?

 

Science has its place. So does religion and the bible. Science does not delve into morals. And the bible does not explain what happens inside an atom.

 

That's a great summary. There's a lot more "unknown" than "known". But year after year we know a little more thanks to science. It answers a lot, but it couldn't answer the most fundamental questions about our existence.

 

How to go through life not knowing those answers? Faith is a good choice. Lots of positive things come from that (also negative). But having no faith isn't so bad either. Me I just accept that we don't have all the answers. All of us will die, guaranteed. Make the best out of it before its over.

 

Some events in Genesis don't quite pan out in the scientific method, but how does that affect us? Unless you're directly involved in the religious or scientific community it doesn't have much effect if you believe either way. Most scientists don't seem to mind if people live their lives following the teachings of an ancient book. Well maybe there are a few exceptions like Dawkins and the Science Guy.

[p4tr1ck]

i would say science.. because science is the future.. we discover new things.. new knowledge.. the more understanding we have.. the more clear it becomes.. of how stuff works around us.. study more.. and have a open mind.. and dont be ignorant.. because ignorance is the one which create chaos in this world..

[Edmund Dantes]

^ best tool for what?

 

Science has its place. So does religion and the bible. Science does not delve into morals. And the bible does not explain what happens inside an atom.

 

Uhm.... I am a scientist, and we have a code of ethics we strictly follow. We even have our own tribunal like the military and the RCC.

 

Besides, values like patience and honesty is part of the scientific attitude.

 

In our lab, we never use human embryonic stem cells because of ethical barriers. We have to follow strict protocols sacrificing our mice. There is a proper way to pick it up, and pacify it.

 

So saying that science does not delve into morals is wrong.

[Edmund Dantes]

OnT

 

Sorry for saying this, but only a stupid person will compare the bible with any science literature. You can't compare MMA from boxing just because they are both combat sports. Or an apple to an orange just because they are both fruits. The language of the bible is more on the metaphor which you can't always take literally. Science is most of the time literal. Its is measurable, quantifiable, and most of all VERIFIABLE.

 

Kaya nga nung debate sa RH bill, I wanted really to cringe sa kabobohan ni Sen. Tito Escallera when he said "hindi tanga ang dyos natin na gagawa ng mundo na basta na lang mapupuno!" to counter statistics being presented. Like are you serious? The statistician can confirm his data! Hindi naman aatend ng session sa senado ang dyos para iverify na tama si Sotto.

 

There is a time to rely on science, and a time to consult the bible or religion for that matter. For example, you have cancer. To find the best chemotherapeutic approach for you, you consult a doctor and let him gather the data. A faith healer will not help you. And neither does praying will miracle the cancer away.

 

If however, knowing your life can end anytime soon, you want to better reflect on your relationships around people, or God if you believe in one. Then consult the bible

Edited September 11, 2015 by Edmund Dantes

[hit05]

Well the Bible is a record of what happened and the witnessing of the power of divine over a course of time. Point is these divine REVELATIONS are not complete and is still continuing. Time will come when men finally discover the Truth, but the Bible is just a means to that end. Germany and the USA spearhead a deep respect for Scriptures since it made society better. When the Germans invented the first printing press, they mass produced the Bible, making it an all time best seller. The USA meanwile started out as Scripture abiding pastors who wanted to form the best government based on Law. They were groups of puritans who started in England but was later persecuted and forced to find refuge in the new world.

 

Science meanwhile is a collection of facts. Nowadays science suffers from too much politics, thus a science congress may declare the Earth is flat once more but in reality, the scientific method is precisely to avoid the SOCIAL pressure that once upon a time forced Western society to view the Earth as flat instead of a sphere. Many who burned non-conformists at stake in public view were equivalent of KNOWLEDGEABLE scientists and their brainwashed students today. They were like scribes and Pharisees in the Gospels who appoint themselves accuser, judge and executioner.

 

In advanced countries like Japan, many enthusiasts are able to contribute to science because they do it properly. For example they can discover new planets or stars and earn credit for that even if they do not have an astronomer's diploma. In the US, Thomas Edison was largely uninstructed yet he dared to study and tinker with many things leading to modern inventions like the telephone , light bulb and phonograph, which proven scientific principles are still in use today.

 

In other words, anyone can be a scientist if he can gather the facts and present it to others who can test and prove the hypothesis as real facts. But today those with diplomas act as if they are scientists yet they only have HYPOTHESIS to offer which are often disproven or inconsistent with the facts or first hand experiences of people. In other words, the hypothetical statements they declare just wont work in real life. Governments spend billions to support authoritative science based on hypothesis that cause more harm rather than benefit to society.

 

Science and Scriptures can agree on a common purpose, and that is TRUTH. The Gospels declare that the Truth shall set you free; In science, if it fails that that is not truth.

Edited October 8, 2015 by hit05

[Edmund Dantes]

 

Science meanwhile is a collection of facts. Nowadays science suffers from too much politics, thus a science congress may declare the Earth is flat once more but in reality, the scientific method is precisely to avoid the SOCIAL pressure that once upon a time forced Western society to view the Earth as flat instead of a sphere. Many who burned non-conformists at stake in public view were equivalent of KNOWLEDGEABLE scientists and their brainwashed students today. They were like scribes and Pharisees in the Gospels who appoint themselves accuser, judge and executioner.

 

In advanced countries like Japan, many enthusiasts are able to contribute to science because they do it properly. For example they can discover new planets or stars and earn credit for that even if they do not have an astronomer's diploma. In the US, Thomas Edison was largely uninstructed yet he dared to study and tinker with many things leading to modern inventions like the telephone , light bulb and phonograph, which proven scientific principles are still in use today.

 

In other words, anyone can be a scientist if he can gather the facts and present it to others who can test and prove the hypothesis as real facts. But today those with diplomas act as if they are scientists yet they only have HYPOTHESIS to offer which are often disproven or inconsistent with the facts or first hand experiences of people. In other words, the hypothetical statements they declare just wont work in real life. Governments spend billions to support authoritative science based on hypothesis that cause more harm rather than benefit to society.

 

Science and Scriptures can agree on a common purpose, and that is TRUTH. The Gospels declare that the Truth shall set you free; In science, if it fails that that is not truth.

 

 

Uhm.....I am a scientist....

 

And many of the things you said here is not an accurate description of what scientific method is about... or scientific attitude for that matter. Yes there is politics in science but it is not in the way you describe it here. The earth will never be declared flat again anymore than 1+1 will be equal to 4 someday because of whatever societal pressure you are talking about. Science is emperical data. Measurable, quantifiable, and most of all verifiable. If we declared a scientific finding based on some societal ideology then it wont be science anymore, would it?

 

Also, may I remind you that we do have our own tribunal. We have our own court like the military has the court marshall. The issue of ethics is taken more seriously by professional scientists, than medical doctors. Do you know what the penalty is for something like say mishandling a transgenic mice in our lab? See we are professionals bound by a code just like soldiers, medicine doctors and engineers. We are not gung ho lunatics like what you see in science fiction or discovery channel who will just create monsters because we can. Science has helped humanity more than it has harmed it. I think this is pretty obvious.

 

BTW, While Edison's inventions did help telecommunication, the telephone itself was invented by Alexander Graham Bell

[hit05]

Scientific groups ought to PROTECT scientists by establishing intellectual property rights and helping organize patents and copyrights office. This is the best way to promote practice and career in science. Many a school or university create new scientists yearly but if there is no way to protect their efforts, who would want to waste time practicing science?

 

Science is basically the sxientific method. Even students of science subjects can be scientists and contribute to new discoveries and innovations. Politics can help the cause of practitioners but it can also exploit or persecute them. If there is simply too much credit grabbing and unnecessary lobbying of business groups to protect profits, then science will suffer falsehood too.