Hey man if you're holding out on some beneficial cures or scientific discoveries I suggest you start upping them. Otherwise your correlation with man's scientific knowledge and your personal bias towards a belief in your book are just that, "correlation".
For the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct that the Bible contains scientific insights "first". That proves nothing about a deity. It just means that it was the first place someone wrote down said scientific insights.
+Dustin Wyatt OK, how do you then explain the knowledge of the "insights" in the first place? How could ocean currents be described 3000 years before they were discovered? Wouldn't that require some supernatural knowledge?Â
So, just because the Bible has some scientific accuracies it doesn't say anything about whether we should or should not believe it's general message. Â After all, a stopped clock is right twice a day.
+John Dawson By definitions, ocean currents could not be described 3000 years before they were discovered.  They were discovered when they were described. Â
You mean "how were they described 3000 years befores someone else discovered them?". Â If the Bible describes them, it could merely mean that someone, either the writer or someone previous to the writer, discovered them. Â Adding a deity to the explanation adds nothing.
+Ahmed AbdAlaa Also, read some mythologies of the time, like the epic of Gilgamesh, some Egyptian, Greek and Zoroastrian mythology, and you'll have read the prequel of the Bible as well 😛
The Bible answers that question (Genesis 1:2-9, Psalm 104:6-9, Proverbs 3:19, Proverbs 8:27-29, Job 38:4-8, 2 Peter 3:518).
It also describes many other scientific principles that weren't discovered until much later. ;-)Â
Hey man if you're holding out on some beneficial cures or scientific discoveries I suggest you start upping them. Otherwise your correlation with man's scientific knowledge and your personal bias towards a belief in your book are just that, "correlation".
+wwjudasdo You should educate yourself before casting aspersions.
http://carm.org/scientific-accuracies-in-the-bible
Until you provide verifiable and sufficient evidence for your personal deity you should stay away from science videos.
For the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct that the Bible contains scientific insights "first". That proves nothing about a deity. It just means that it was the first place someone wrote down said scientific insights.
+Dustin Wyatt OK, how do you then explain the knowledge of the "insights" in the first place? How could ocean currents be described 3000 years before they were discovered? Wouldn't that require some supernatural knowledge?Â
+John Dawson Now, to address your specific implication…that the Bible is scientifically accurate:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_Bible
So, just because the Bible has some scientific accuracies it doesn't say anything about whether we should or should not believe it's general message. Â After all, a stopped clock is right twice a day.
+John Dawson By definitions, ocean currents could not be described 3000 years before they were discovered.  They were discovered when they were described. Â
You mean "how were they described 3000 years befores someone else discovered them?". Â If the Bible describes them, it could merely mean that someone, either the writer or someone previous to the writer, discovered them. Â Adding a deity to the explanation adds nothing.
+John Dawson i should read the Bible it's technically the prequel -ish of the holy Quran (no offense intended just the opposite)Â
+Ahmed AbdAlaa
Also, read some mythologies of the time, like the epic of Gilgamesh, some Egyptian, Greek and Zoroastrian mythology, and you'll have read the prequel of the Bible as well 😛
+Claus Angeloh Ah yes, I knew that the old canard/red herring couldn't be far behind. #eyeroll
+Claus Angeloh myth sometimes comes from truth but it's up to you to decide which is whichÂ