A Bible Science Whopper I Never Saw Before.

Someone recommended godandscience.org which is horrendously bad at talking about science (and nukes almost all non-believers from their forums even though they claim not to), and I wanted to show the person who rec’d it a quick example of how wrong they get science so I looked up a random article on their site, one rationalizing the biblical flood.  It did so by claiming the flood wasn’t global (which would defeat the point which was to kill everything, even I know that).  And cited as “proof” passages in the bible referring to the promise god made AFTER the flood not to flood the whole world again (so dishonest).  Anyway, this one caught my eye for it’s sheer scientific backwardness, and I thought I would share:

“Do you not fear Me?’ declares the Lord.  ‘Do you not tremble in My presence?  For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea,  An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it.  Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail;  Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it.” (Jeremiah 5:22)

The sand isn’t a boundary for the sea, there is no physical property of sand that it stops water, it doesn’t stop water since tsunamis and hurricaines tend not to give two shits about a little sand in their wake, and my personal favorite, the sand is a by-product of the waves, the waves cause it, the sand doesn’t do squat to the waves.  This is like the bible saying god made drool as a boundary to stop wolves from ripping your throat out.

So yeah.  This is just something I came across, it’s apparently not hard to find scientific inaccuracies in the bible if even articles rationalizing other inaccuracies are riddled with them..

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to A Bible Science Whopper I Never Saw Before.

  1. The Bible is not a science manual.  People who use the Bible as a science manual are crack pots.  They have no credibility.I do not see how going after crack pots strengthens the atheist position.  In fact it makes it look weak.  Anybody can make bank on crack pots.JT aka zerowing21 does the same thing.  You guys hallucinate that Christians are crack pots then you go out and find crack pots to prove your case.That is not anywhere near the scientific method.  How can guys make a claim to science when your own methods are cheap rhetoric, not scientific.

  2. agnophilo says:

    @maniac_rose – Yup.@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – Um, so the authors of the bible are crackpots?  I criticized scripture, not a religious person.  And I agree, it isn’t a science book.  It does however make wrong scientific claims.

  3. @agnophilo – Your critique of scripture is from a scientific standpoint.  If I compared science from a scriptural standpoint it would be a total fail.You are committing the philosophical error of camparing two different classes of things. Since God created our minds to think and since he created the universe there can be no conflict between faith and reason.And science cannot be used to disprove God.  You and your group of religion hating sophists are simply spinning clumps of flawed thinking.

  4. agnophilo says:

    @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – I understand the need for you to compartmentalize and say “this is in this category and that is in that category and neither can have anything to do with one another”, but a non-science book can make a factual claim that is not scientifically true, or that can be scientifically disproven.  If I wrote a philosophy book and mentioned in passing that the world is flat, it wouldn’t be correct just because it isn’t in a science book.

  5. Axis_of_Doom says:

    Just wanted to see feedback on this. Mere curiosity. 

  6. @agnophilo – I understand the need for you to compartmentalize and say “this is in this category and that is in that category and neither can have anything to do with one another” Science is about order and classification and so is philosophy. So when I say that the Bible and science are two different classes of items I don’t do so out of a “feeling,” I do so because it’s both the scientifically and philosophically correct thing to do.The reason most of your arguments don’t work is because they are disordered. To you, order is some else’s feeling.

  7. wearywalden says:

    I think it is a metaphor 

  8. musterion99 says:

    It could also be in reference to the sea not flooding the whole earth.

  9. agnophilo says:

    @Axis_of_Doom – Alrighty ::ping::@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – “Science” generally means either a specific methodology for testing natural explanations, or the facts derived from that process.  In this case I am using the term to mean the latter, so when I say “science” I just mean observable reality.The bible isn’t conflicting with lab geeks in white coats with test tubes, it’s in conflict with observable reality.  Sand doesn’t stop water.@wearywalden – For what?@musterion99 – ?

  10. @agnophilo – The bible isn’t conflicting with lab geeks in white coats with test tubes, it’s in conflict with observable reality.  Actually observable reality supports the existence of God.  And since the Bible was written by educated people whose only way of discerning reality was through eyes-on observation, I’d have to conclude that you are hallucinating again.Sand doesn’t stop water.Yes it does.  Go to the beach and watch it happen. I must say that your tsunami hallucination was one of your best.

  11. agnophilo says:

    @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – God you’re insane.Thanks for once again making me regret engaging you in conversation.

  12. @agnophilo – I hate to break it to you, but inspite of my rather hyperbolic delivery I’m main stream.  You and your buddies are the wack jobs. 

  13. agnophilo says:

    @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – That’s called projection.

  14. musterion99 says:

    @agnophilo – After God flooded the earth during Noah’s time, he said he would not destroy the earth (all of it) again with a flood. 

  15. agnophilo says:

    @musterion99 – I know.  It’s in the blog.  I don’t get your point.

  16. musterion99 says:

    @agnophilo – You said – “ it doesn’t stop water since tsunamis and hurricanes tend not to give two shits about a little sand in their wake “.So what I was saying is that verse isn’t implying that it would stop hurricanes.

  17. agnophilo says:

    @musterion99 – It doesn’t imply it, it outright says it:”I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea,  An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it.”

  18. musterion99 says:

    @agnophilo – Yes, but there’s also the context of all of scripture. This is the problem when atheists just isolate one verse of scripture.

  19. agnophilo says:

    @musterion99 – Actually christians did, on their website.And tell me oh wise and dickish one, what is the magical context that makes that passage accurate to reality?

  20. wearywalden says:

    @agnophilo – for the power of God, it is not saying their is something about the sand that keeps the water from crossing over it. Rather God decided that the water should only go so far

  21. musterion99 says:

    @wearywalden – Actually christians did, on their website.[And tell me oh wise and dickish one, what is the magical context that makes that passage accurate to reality?]They are interpreting it in the light of all scripture. That’s the only way it makes theological sense. I wasn’t arguing the reality of it. I gave an explanation to help understand what it’s implying and not implying.

  22. wearywalden says:

    @musterion99 – Just because it was written on a website does not mean it is the belief of christians.  They are not a single amorphous blob.  I was simply trying to offer an alternate interpretation.

  23. musterion99 says:

    @wearywalden – Sorry, I accidently hit the reply button on your comment. It was meant for @agnophilo – 

  24. agnophilo says:

    @wearywalden – But that is wrong also.  The waves produce the sand, not the other way around.Whatever, you are not capable of conceding this point.@musterion99 – That is gibberish.  When you want to defend your assertion feel free to comment.

  25. wearywalden says:

    @agnophilo – I never said they didn’t.   

  26. Believing every single word in a bible or any book for that matter is just insane. Its even more moronic to believe something you find on the internet.The bible was meant to be a story book with some morals thrown in so people might learn to be better people by learning from others’ mistakes. But mostly an entertainment source since there was really nothing else to do but farm & have children.Remember the telephone game you might have played as a child? Well think of the stories from the bible as longer versions of that. The bible, torah, & koran were stories told from memory for centuries before ever written down, then lets not forget about language translations or how churches or ye olde times changed things for their benefit over the years.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s