@wolverinebatmanftw:
“And if you want, I can show you more examples of scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. This page and this page have compiled a few inaccuracies nicely. This one, too.”
“And I'm not looking for biased sources. I'm looking for scientific sources, and I don't know if you've heard, but being unbiased is a pretty important part of the central premise of science. Also, are you seriously going to tell me I'm being biased when the only source you've presented and are defending is a religious text from thousands of years ago? Science is generally meant to be detached from ideology. The same cannot be said for religion.”
Here, you're linking to rationalwiki,org, which is something of a mirror image of Answers in Genesis from the perspective of atheists. You're being disingenuous, and, it was known from the start, because you didn't even put any effort, at all, into investigating the source that I directed you to, after you asked for one; after being invited a second time, you still haven't taken up the invitation; you clearly are (or were not actually) looking to be biased against the information being provided. This doesn't help you from a standpoint of looking to get informed; websites like Answers in Genesis are constantly fielding claims and responses from rationalwiki,org; thus, to help inform yourself, you might want to go over to Answers in Genesis to see what they had to say in response; that's clearly the more objective approach to things. Since I have a background in science already, I'm not being that biased in my approach; I can anticipate what they're likely going to say, so, I stick with Answers in Genesis to see what they say in response, and draw my conclusions; but, at this time, I'm unable to be active and practicing as a scientist, so I default to scientists who can still be active to help keep me informed, but from the side who doesn't have so much riding on getting a win; I'm on the side that's won, so far (e.g. as I said, atheism had its golden age from about 1800 through 1950, science and technology caught up, and Christianity proved to be correct; however, the way society has shifted such that it's easier to indoctrinate young people in school and have it appear was getting an education, it appears that Christianity is slipping, but, that isn't the case, at all, just based off the findings; however, you will need to visit Answers in Genesis to discover this to be the case; naturally, the side that's loss is going to want to try to dissuade people from going there; but, you have to gain wisdom and experience to figure this out; you haven't figured out or asked yourself, why is it so difficult for me to just go start looking over Answers in Genesis; if you find something seemingly bogus, you ask questions there, and they can't provide a valid answer, you can draw a conclusion, except there are a wide array of different evidences available). The people running Answers in Genesis are also scientists who are willing to be much more objective in their approach. You're presuming and then insisting and spreading unfounded claims about Answers in Genesis without even investigating it; you more serving as a decoy to someone who might be interested in learning, objectively.
Sure, conducting science and gathering data is unbiased, but, given the context, the findings can often times be open to interpretation and there is where the bias comes into place; I've heard things from that side like disregard a supernatural source even if the data is pointed that way; hence, the bias on display; that's just one example.
Again, this is all your ignorance of the source or a level of disingenuousness that is so high that you can't be taken seriously; the source that I pointed you to, again, is about interpreting raw data and drawing conclusions that are plainly obvious from the raw data; from there, they point out how it supports the Bible; the fact that it is from thousands of years again is then one confirmation that it is inspired from God, which is kind of the point; if it were just a text from merely people from thousands of years ago, we'd expect everything from it to be antiquated and inaccurate; you want to disregard it by default based on its age when the proper approach is to at least give it an investigative mind and then draw conclusions about the validity; but, it also has to be an extensive and in depth investigation to then conclusively draw a conclusion, but, still being open to being shown an approach in the future that could show your conclusions to have been wrong.
“Just vaguely saying that observations of telescopes confirm your ideas does not constitute quoting actual empirical evidence. In science, you're expected to be specific, and to provide actual scientific sources.”
This all depends on the context and you were referred to a source to start looking. Depending on how precise you want your information depends on how accurate you decide to investigate the sources that you'll find. I basically described something found by telescopes; now, you're left to confirm for yourself whether galaxies are group into larger configurations or whether there isn't any larger configuration, or, that galaxies are in no particular order. As such, I didn't just vaguely describe anything as you imply here.
“Are you asking why I didn't reply to you immediately? It's only been 2 days, and also, I did not see the notification until recently, as I do get pings from other threads. You're not the centre of my existence.”
Obviously, if you asked a question and had legitimate expectations of receiving the answers, you likely would stick around for that answer; this is just a logical extension, not an issue of whether you believe that I'm central to your existence; it was based on expecting you to do something that most people do in a conversation.
“Also, you say I've been linked a source, but in actuality, no matter how much you believe in it, the Bible cannot be considered a valid scientific source. This is a book that said a man was able to fit 2 of every land species on earth into a boat, and that the Earth was created in a few days.”
Here, you're talking in vagueness; be precise in what you mean about the Bible being a scientific source; your precision will then allow me to determine whether we're on the same page; so far, it appears that you're referring to something that neither I nor a source like Answers in Genesis would be referring to. The Bible doesn't say that something was placed into a boat; here, you're extremely vague about the use of the term, boat; nor does the Bible say that the earth was created in a few days; Answers in Genesis doesn't say that the earth was created in a few days; here, you need to be a lot more specific about what it is that you're getting at; you obviously made no effort, at all, to investigate the source that you claimed to need; the key term, investigate, for one; except you obviously didn't even bother to just simply find or access the provided website. The reason that it's done this way is because there are thousands of examples to be shared, not just a single or even a few examples to cover the topic of discussion and what you asked; here, you don't seem to understand how vague your question, again, speaking of being vague.
“This is an inaccurate comparison. According to modern scientific research, electrons don't actually orbit nuclei in rings.”
This isn't something that I said, either; however, the 1s, 2s, 3s, etc shells are still true; what you're referencing is an electron cloud and the larger structural configuration of galaxies is quite similar, which is closer to what I said. Here, you just have to concede a point, which was that galaxies form larger clusters which are similar to electrons orbiting the nucleus, where, there should be no discernible structure, at all, to chaos and disorder, which was the point (e.g. this is beyond remarkable that anything even close to this level of structural arrangement can be found, pretty clearly); each shell have ever increasing numbers of electrons, similar to the way galaxies appear in their larger arrangements. Basically, you're trying to shift the topic, instead of embarking on an expedition of learning, which was required, where your question implied that you needed information; but, this is how you demonstrated yourself to be disingenuous; you have to actually be honest with yourself and embark on a mission of exploration.
“Your second point about the formation of stars is incredibly vague. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to lay out the specifics, not just say stuff like "star formation isn't something that's actually been observed nor should star formation be something that is expected to be observed, based on the properties of gases, in a chemical sense. As expected from gas laws, we only observe stars dying."”
No, not at all; that star formation has not been observed to occur is quite precise; not being expected based on how gases behave is quite precise, as well; this was coupled with a source to investigate star formation, where, you claimed to need information to pursue; that's how I responded to your question and how I would respond to your question, as, by the same token, you likewise need to be less vague in your question; but, you can only do this, if you were way more informed on what you think you sound intelligent in attacking. You provided links, though, so I likewise provided links to help you become more informed.
“You can call me stupid if you like for not wanting to accept your vague inferences and references, but that won't change the fact that what you've said would hold absolutely no value in a serious scientific debate.”
I'm not in a scientific debate, I was answering your question; and, strategically speaking, I wouldn't necessarily get into a scientific debate, as I'd take it that my opponent was a practicing scientists, whereas I cannot currently practice science; but, I could relay information from scientists who are a practicing scientists, which I'm doing; depending on what's necessary, I can then debate, based on the disconnects, as I can still tell who is right and who is wrong; but, the topic is much more complicated and expansive. And, the comment you quoted said the totality of the circumstances of different evidences.
“And if you want, I can show you more examples of scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. This page and this page have compiled a few inaccuracies nicely. This one, too.”
See https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/two-missing-legs/
See https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/are-mustard-seeds-the-smallest-or-was-jesus-wrong/
See https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/do-ancient-canaanite-remains-discredit-bible/
See https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/examination-hugh-ross-creation-passages-proverbs-to-isaiah/
See https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/as-easy-as-pi/
See https://www.icr.org/article/9296
See https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/days-without-sun-what-was-source-light/
See https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/are-stars-still-forming-today/
See https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/the-age-of-the-universe-part-2/
Log in to comment