Trading science for super natural beliefs?

A quick question,

How many times has religion been found to so accurately describe a physical phenomenon that it has replaced a scientific understanding?

 

Christianity has on multiple occasions:

1) The bible was the first to say the earth was round when the world thought it to be flat.
2) The bible was the first to say there were underwater mountains when the world thought the ocean seabed was flat
3) The bible was the first to say there were ocean currents when the world didn't think there were
4) The bible was the first to say there were jetstreams in the air before the world discovered them
5) The bible was the first to say that the Orion star cluster was gravitationally unstable when the world thought the Orion star cluster was stable
6) The bible was the first to say that the Pleiades star cluster was gravitationally stable before the world discovered that it was
7) The bible was the first to declare that the universe is expanding when the world said it wasn't.
8 ) The bible was the first to say that the universe has a beginning before science figured out the universe wasn't eternally in the past
9) The bible was the first to say that there are underground oceans when science said there was nothing but molten rock (but then found itself wrong)
10) The bible was the first to say that the earth was suspended in space when the world thought something held it up.


Should I keep going?

 

Nice deliberate misunderstanding of the OP. and yes, I think you should keep going.

 

I have a funny feeling a lot of people are going to skip the word "replaced" and angle for a hamfisted "predicted". Even then, the "predictions" will all have been made well after the scientific discovery with desperate claims that vague verses had hypothesized the same.

But no, obviously no religion has produced a description that has successfully replaced scientific understanding. Someone that knows more about Bayes Theorem should spell out the implications of that.

Now, I will say that certain philosophically inclined religious traditions have produced arguments that science has later validated. But that is thanks only to the strength of the reasoning, not on any supernatural revelation.

 

Yeah... No.

 

Sorry, both Pythagoras and Aristotle had put forward and argued for a spherical Earth at least 600 years before the Bible was written.

Should we keep going?

 

Religions are social phenomenon so to equate that to science is trying to compare apples to oranges.

 

Not to mention the Egyptians may have known as well. Regardless, one could determine the spherical nature of the earth using the science of the time; no need for religious revelation. Besides, the Bible never says the earth is a sphere.

 

The Bible claimed the earth had four corners ... Where are these "underground oceans"?

 

There are a couple of verses and Isaiah and Job that people invoke to say that the earth is a sphere, even though they could just as easily be saying that the earth is a two-dimensional circle. I guess that's the best way to hedge your bets, though: claim that the earth is both round and flat, then claim victory when science discovers the truth and say that the contradictory verses are just symbolic.

 

Nope...

"From his seat in heaven, God can see the whole earth and all its inhabitants."-Psalms 33:14-15 He sits directly above the earth, which is a flat disc below him.

"God will gather up the people of Judea "from the four corners of the earth." --Isaiah 11:12. In the Bible's view, the earth is flat with four corners.


"He [God] ... will hiss unto them from the end of the earth." Isaiah 5:26 The earth is flat and has an end.

The stone became "a great mountain" that "filled the whole earth."--Daniel 2:35 This could only be possible on a flat, disc-shaped earth.

Daniel's tree is tall enough to be seen from "the end of all the earth." --Daniel 4:10-11, 20 Only on a flat earth would this be possible.

The devil kidnaps Jesus and takes him up to the top of the temple, and then to the top of "an exceedingly high mountain," high enough to see "all the kingdoms of the world." ---Mathewe 4:8 Guess the earth was flat in those days?


BTW, naturally QChan won't accept this. It's for the benefit of others.

 

Nope.

The Bible refers to the Earth as a "circle" and an object that possesses "four corners". Neither description is indicative of a sphere.

Also, for your reference:

lol

Why would it be a stretch to believe there would be mountains in the sea if there were mountains on dry land? This would be impressive if a Lat and Long were given to said mountains with the specific heights mentioned.

Nope.

Neither Psalms 8:8 nor Isaiah 43:16 specifically describe an ocean current.

Nope.

Ecclesiastes 1:6 does not specifically describe a jet stream.

And which verses are you forcing into the mold for these examples?

Nope.

Neither Ezekiel 1:22, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Job 9:8, Job 26:7, Job 37:18, Psalms 18:9, Psalms 104:2, Psalms 144:5, 2 Samuel 22:10, nor Zechariah 12:1 describe an expanding universe.

If you notice you will see the verbage is past tense (hopefully we don't need to delve into basic English here, like we did with the definition of rare). Nor do they specifically describe any sort of physical phenomenon.

The bible was the first to say? LOL Do you have any idea how many creation myths exist and how many existed before Christianity?

I imagine you are forcing a verse to fit the mold again?

All the while claiming that:
1. The earth was covered with the filament.
2. Refers to the moon as a source of light.
3. Claims that stars are small objects that will fall back to earth upon Jesus's return.
4. The earth existed before the sun.
5. Insects walks on four legs.
6. Claims that pi is a rational number.

Yes so that we may watch your verses to fit the retroactive mold, instead of making specific and accurate predictions about future scientific discoveries via Biblical verses.

What is the exact nature of dark energy and dark matter?

 

Aristotle was born in 384 BC.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

Pythagoras was born in 570 BC.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras

The book of Isaiah is was written between the 8th and 5th century BC.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah


But I'll give this to you anyway since it's possible that the Egyptians knew the earth was round centuries before even then.

The 4 corners of the earth refer to North, South, East and West. You obviously knew that.

As for the underground oceans.
Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-more-water-than-in-all-the-oceans-combined/
http://time.com/2868283/subterranean-ocean-reservoir-core-ringwoodite/

 

Did you read your source?

Of course, it’s not the kind you can put in your Brita, nor would it save a desert wanderer. It’s trapped in the molecular structure of the rock.

Researchers got to that conclusion by studying seismic waves produced by North American earthquakes. These afforded a peek into the regional deep crust. Then to corroborate their suspicions, they put ringwoodite into conditions similar to 400 miles below the Earth’s surface, which showed how the water is trapped.

 

yeah, when it talked of four corners and that it was suspended in space... IE everything revolved around the earth... boy you trying to re-write some history there


- - - Updated - - -

yes, keep going, add bible quotes to back up you accretions... LOL

.

 

Right... Except the man who discovered the ocean currents credited the bible for his discovery.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Fontaine_Maury

Mankind once thought that the wind blew then petered off. Only the bible suggested the wind had a circuit.

Job 38:31 says, "“Can you direct the movement of the stars — binding the cluster of the Pleiades or loosening the cords of Orion?"

Your attempts to explain away those verses are laughable.

Atheists such as Lawrence Krauss still believe that "something" still existed eternally in the past to create the Big Bang. He attributes that to quantum particles. So, will you instead agree with Lawrence Krauss that there was something rather than nothing?

<Rule 2>

Well... Us creationists have been arguing with you guys for a few months now that there was once a global flood. Your responses mostly were, "Then where did all the water go?!?!". Little did any of you uninformed atheists know, the water was underneath your feet. This discovery was made last year. Here's another source for ya!

Source: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...t-that-could-fill-our-oceans-three-times-over

Now that we were right this whole time, you wanna play it off and say we're forcing a verse into the mold? <Rule 2>

<Rule 2>:

1) LOL! Do you mean "firmament"?
2) Uh huck yuck! The moonlight is a thing.
3) "Stars" are allegorical for "angels". They also refer to meteorites as well.
4) Well, it's a better explanation as to why Venus, Uranus (Uranus spinning like a ball) and Pluto spin backwards, thus being in contrary to the Law of Angular Momentum. Also better than why Jupiter, Uranus, Saturn and Neptune exist when they're not supposed to. Also a better explanation as to why Mercury spins on its axis when it's supposed to be tidally locked to the sun. A way better explanation as to why the moon has a heat signature suggesting its not dead like its supposed to be. You're out of your league here, kid. You better quit now.
5) Crickets walk on four legs. They only jump with their hind legs.
6) Deflection.

<Rule 2/3>

 

My kind of troll, lol.

 

It's just an opinion...but I think the original writers of the Bible probably never intended their works to be taken literally. The wording seems very much like the artful form of a flowery, poetic storyteller rather than direct observations or interpretations of the world. I don't think these people were stupid and, reading some of these things, you'd have to be an idiot to take them literally.

 

We're so glad to see that you've finally left religion, by getting rid of your obviously-wrong Bible, Margot.

 

WHOA THERE, HOSS! I'm sure that QChan has run up to his study room, whipped out the Bible, and is now feverishly removing the blatantly unscientific verses that you so perfectly highlighted for him in your post, since the scientific truth is so vitally important to him! He'll be thanking you as soon as he's done. Religious people care deeply about the minds of their children, so they update/improve their all-important religious texts on a regular basis! Well, that's what *I* do, so I assume that that's what they do as well.

 

"Seeing how we are writing what we believe will be the most important book of all time, the one true book inspired by the creator of the universe no less, let's NOT say what we mean, NOT mean what we say, let's hope that people do NOT take it at face value, can't trust it's word, and let's be as vague as possible so they don't know what the HELL we are trying to say."


BTW, I think Richard Dawkins has a completely different approach to writing than the writers of the Bible did, but maybe that's just me.

 

Or the work of someone who was really really high on what has to be the world's best LSD (I'm real envious of them - where can I get some s**t like that!?)

- - - Updated - - -

I love this guy!

 

And "Jesus" is allegorical for "rebirth". A good allegory, I like it. So of course he's not coming back to let you survive your own death, professor, since it's allegory like "stars", but an interesting allegory that has entertained people for centuries.

 

If they were actually inspired by an all-knowing magic leader of the invisible sky people like they claim, then they would have referred to it (since it's actually round, and not flat), as say, "from the four quadrants of the earth", not "from the four corners of the earth", lest they look like fools.
You obviously knew that, professor, but were just checking on we students, trying to keep us intellectually honest. Thanks for that.

 

Or more accurately: comparing diamonds to runny dog poo.