[Locked] Is Scientist really proving the Bible to be wrong?

Thoughts from scientists should still be taken as thoughts.

Too much politics in Global Warming. Leaves a bad taste discussing it.

kind of the same thing with religion half the time

It's funny because the vast majority of people I find arguing Global Warming, don't even know why it is really called Global.

.... what? What do you mean they don't know... what? ... wtf

Yes, but they're far more qualified to think, and talk about science than we are. Or are you suggesting I never take anything I hear from a scientist as being scientific?

Seriously, I'm giving you sources for my information, and you don't seem to care. Do sources not matter to you?

The reason it's called that is because it was placed before the United Nations as a global problem.

That's actually the real reason it has Global in its name.

Too many things make me avoid it. A lot of 'prominent' research in the field supporting it is conducted by people who benefit from it existing. There are be circumstances where sensors have gone wrong and have measured things wrong which got ignored.

that actualy reminds me of a joke. It's in one of the videos I put up about global warming. Essentially, Al Gore points to a map of Europe and says, "Western Europe went through a heat wave that killed 14,000 people." The presenter paused the video and said, "Let me explain how climatologists measure warming. They look outside, and if it feels hot, they conclude the earth is warming, and if it's cold, they conclude the earth is cooling...If that sounds incredibly stupid, you're right."

[quote="the unknown"]

from:

Opinion article written by an unsourced author. Discarded. Neither is it peer reviewed, nor do I even have any clue as to who wrote it, NOR are there any sources for the information in the article. Its grammar is also sloppy, so I have doubts that it's professionally done. Simply having a website that agrees with you means literally zilch. Seriously, go read up on what Peer Review is, and why it's important.



No, they start as hypotheses', and after they go through testing, and pass the testing, do they get upgraded to Theories.

As for your source. Good job on finding a credible scientist that actually uses citations and is trained to speak on global warming. But again, not a peer reviewed article. Not only that, but at no point does he mention global warming as a "theory" AND, not only that, but he spends the whole article criticizing skeptics of global warming(mich like yourself).

Honestly, OP, your own post puts you on the spot. If God was omnipotent, why did he need 7 days to create the Earth?

In any case, if you actually believe the Bible to be a credible source of any kind, then you're helpless

The Geocentric model wasn't a Theory, so no, it was a disproven theory, it was simply a disproven model. In fact, prior to Galileo, there really was no such thing as a scientific theory, as the scientific method wasn't invented until around his time.



Firstly, it wasn't theh elp of a microscope, it was the help of a specialized beaker. Secondly, spontaneous generation again, wasn't a scientific theory. So that's double fail.



And fail over and over.



Karl Schmidt is the writer. I can't find his credentials anywhere. I don't know if he's a climatologist, but it really doesn't matter, as not only is the article, which is rather lengthy, unsourced, written amateurishly, and simply sloppy(I.E. Using disproven and also known to be made up graphs), but it's also not peer reviewed.

So you still fail. Find me a climatologist of some sort in a peer revieweed paper that refers to global warming as a theory. You've failed consistently to do that.

One big question: What is the criteria that makes [insert holy book's name here] true?

Ok here is my explanation....
Scientists are just proving what already has been explained from the people in the past...
People used the words from the past and there wasn't much words in the past...
Here is an example...
"I saw huge birds tossing eggs on the ground releasing the power of the hell-fire"
Translation:
"I saw huge plains launching bombs and rockets on the battlefield exploding"

The bible and the quran back then used old school words and we are in a new century where new words are being written....

so basically the old and the new are explaining the same thing... just their ways of vocabulary wasn't the same.....
So there is no such thing as proving the bible/quran wrong because these 2 books are "Old school wisdom" using "Old school words"

Scientists did NOT exist in the past with all these technology because electricity did NOT EXIST at that time Jesus ( peace and blessings be upon him) spread his message around and sure not after his departure....

So we cannot say scientists are right proving something wrong because the past did not have what we have now....

To tell, you the truth guys, the past is hard to define and contrast. Most of our past all written through a first person point of view. So we can picture how they saw it and wrote it down. Science is paving the way and is re-writing how the people in the past wrote the bible or any past texts. Because honestly, I don't say the bible or any ancient scripture isn't true; most of it all are similar to each other. Just to say it in a shorter term: Science is unraveling how the bible is told in a third person point of view.

The bible is written through a first person point of view, which is the reason why some people are a little skeptical about the bible authenticity. Its authenticity that drives people to believe and accept things. The bible doesn't have a hundred percent authenticity because it clashes with the new discoveries and findings in our world today. That's the reason why some people turn to science. Because its not being described in a first person point of view;its being discussed in a third person point of view.

So therefore science isn't proving the bible wrong. It is only deciphering the bible into its own point of view; So they can separate whats fact from fiction. That's all there is to this discussion. That's my reason. :D

This is what I really feel about this topic. I believe the bible at the same time in science. would that make me hypocrite?

wut

Now don't you be lying to me, son

[quote="the unknown
"In fact, prior to Galileo, there really was no such thing as a scientific theory, as the scientific method wasn't invented until around his time."

...really? So what you are saying is science was around before Galileo? And people were not performing experiments before him? And people did not base their theories off their experiments before Galileo?

scientific theory-"a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable" "
If you claim there were no theories based on scientific observations before Galileo then I suggest you think a little. Science does not have to involve machines.


Geocentric model aka (Geocentric Theory, Ptolemaic system, geocentrism) was a theory that claimed the Earth was the center of the universe.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geocentric

Spontaneous generation is a scientific theory since scientific experiments were done to prove it. A new type of beaker can be refered to an advancement in technology. Technology does not only deal with machines. It also deals with an advancement in a method used.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/technology
The microscope helped shut the lid on the spontaneous generation theory.

On global warming:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-Braswell-97-BAMS.pdf
[/quote]

Alright. 3 points.
1. Your first point about the geocentric model is unsupported. Just because you can find a dictionary to call something a theory that isn't, nor ever was, doesn't makit one. the fact of the matter is, the scientific method wasn't even invented until Galileo's time, and it is well accepted Galileo was the first prominant scientist to actualy implement the method successfully and correctly.

The reason things weren't scientific theories prior to Galileo was because, quite simply, there was never any testindone. Experiments were never done. All that happened was that people made observations, and made guesses...and that was it. There was no way to fine tune things down to a degree of certainty. Theories are what happens AFTER testing is applied, and testing is passed.
2.Your point about beakers being known as 'technology' is not only irrelevant, but I never argued that it was true. Secondly, spontaneous generation(ad that's all it was called, it was NEVER referred to as a 'theory') was disproven by beakers, not microscopes. The point I'M at contention with concerning you, is that you cal spontaneous generation a scientific theory, when it was never anything of the sort.
3. I can't read your link, because it's not showing up for me. However I'm fairly certain it's not a peer reviewed paper, as it's not linked to a scientific journal.

I HAVe however looked up Dr. Roy Spencer, and braswell, and I have found a couple of their papers concerning global warming. According to climatologists, none of them show that global warming isn't affected by humans, just that the sun causes global warming as well. Also, it still doesn't call global warming a 'theory', nor does it define 'global warming thoery' as you have continued to call it baselessly, as a theory that man is the sole purpose behind global warming.

So there you go, you've failed three MORE times. Try again, I love debunking your bs.