Toto

The point of this to me seems to be that the people who wrote this know so little about basic arithmetic that they think 10^21 is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^25, probably because they've got 3 arabic numerals in common. :Cheeky:

FatherMithras

Ummm.. No. What YOU are doing is eading the Bible and thinking "this book is entirely correct and contains factual information". For that reason, when you come across anything that you can interpret as being accurate, you present it as evidence. We've shown on here how awful your evidence is. Continuing to claim it's correct is silly. It's been falsified.

Random Evil Guy

probably, because it makes no sense at all. the numbers aren't even close to oneanother. not to mention that even two integers, both aproximately 10^25, could be very different from each other...:banghead:

steamer

Bah...You guys just have no appreciation for scale. Obviously if you use a big enough scale these numbers can be considered "amazingly close" For instance if one considers an infinite set of numbers....:Cheeky:

Mageth

No, I do not think the bible is not a reliable source for science. I know the Bible is not a reliable source for science. And it was not intended to be a reliable source for science.

Interestingly, even many Christians (and Christian theologians) acknowledge this, going all the way back to:

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (Origen, The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (ibid., 2:9).

(read that last bolded part as "the Bible is not intended as a science book.")

So, even Origen and Augustine appear to disagree strongly with your position. In fact, Augustine makes this recommendation, which would seem to be directed at you:

"It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are."

(Second time I've gotten to use those quotes in the last two days)

lpetrich

Richard Carrier had taken on similar claims made by Muslims about the Koran in his article Predicting Modern Science: Epicurus vs. Mohammed. He found that Lucretius's book On the Nature of Things, which explains Epicurus's beliefs, has no less than 22 clearly-stated predictions of important discoveries of modern science.

So does the Bible really do much better than the Koran or Epicurus?

Random Evil Guy

like what? N - all natural numbers? it is still pretty nonsical...

Astreja

I would like to point out the obvious here. People have known this from well before any scriptures were written by anyone.

You cut an animal's or a person's throat, or otherwise inflict a large wound... It loses blood and quickly dies. Divine knowledge? I don't think so.

(oops, saw this had already been addressed above.)

But I have another question... Why is it so important for proponents of religious books to have their books seen as "science?" And why, if it is important to them, do they then discard scientific method and try to handicap modern science with nonsense like Intelligent Design?

Sparrow

For at least some who do this, I'm convinced it's because they know their beliefs are unreliable and indefensible when compared to science. They are trying to gain the utility and power of scientific thought. It's sort of like grasping at a last straw before shouting "god said it, I believe it, that settles it!".

Naphtali Jones

Job also says that God set the sea level by holding back the waters with bars and doors and stern commands. "This far you may come, but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop" Job 38:11. :Cheeky:

~Nap