Thoughts?

I found this posted on facebook. I'd like to hear what you guys think about this.

Comment by Ed on April 24, 2013 at 8:09am

Science then? There was NO science during the sheep herding days of the old testament bible.

Comment by kris feenstra on April 24, 2013 at 1:47pm

Even if it was true -- though I can see from the first example provided that it isn't --, the Bible provides one or two cryptic lines on the subject matter which need to be liberally interpreted to reconcile with reality, whereas modern science has created volumes of work describing each individual item.

And in some cases, all three columns are wrong:

  • Blood is one element which allows living creatures to exists, but not all living beings have blood. It is not the source of life, though it is required for human life. It is not the source of health, though healthy blood is important for good health.
  • Bloodletting placed a lot of emphasis on blood as an important element of health. The people who did it knew that exsanguination was a potential cause of death.
  • While bloodletting was, on balance, overwhelmingly bad, modern medicine does take blood for various reasons. Also, in limited instances, leeches once used for bloodletting are still used today (or at least within the last few decades). 

My point here is not to treat this seriously, but rather to illustrate the level of ignorance or disregard for truth required to generate the list in the OP.

Comment by Dale Headley on April 24, 2013 at 7:10pm

"Science then" was not science.  

Comment by Logicallunatic on April 25, 2013 at 7:16am

Absolute nonsense. Life is too short to be refuting this crap.

Comment by Unseen on April 25, 2013 at 8:34am

When you have a document rife with contradictions and inconsistencies, now and then you'll find a nugget of truth, but look on another page and you'll read something opposite or inconsistent. 

How about a list of all of the idiotic things in The Bible?

Comment by archaeopteryx on April 25, 2013 at 11:42am

Isaiah 40:22 - "It is he who sitteth upon the circle of the earth...." - the ancient Sumerians believed the earth was a flat disk, surrounded by a dome of tin. But WE know the truth, don't we --?

Comment by archaeopteryx on April 25, 2013 at 11:39pm

Here's a by-product of religion:

Chile arrests 4 accused of burning baby in rite

    SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -Chilean police on Thursday arrested four people accused of burning a baby alive in a ritual because the leader of the sect believed that the end of the world was near and that the child was the antichrist.
    The 3-day-old baby was taken to a hill in the town of Colliguay near the Chilean port of Valparaiso on Nov. 21 and was thrown into a bonfire. The baby's mother, 25-year-old Natalia Guerra, had allegedly approved the sacrifice and was among those arrested.
    "The baby was naked. They strapped tape around her mouth to keep her from screaming. Then they placed her on a board. After calling on the spirits they threw her on the bonfire alive," said Miguel Ampuero, of the Police investigative Unit, Chile's equivalent of the FBI.
    Authorities said the 12-member sect was formed in 2005 and was led by Ramon Gustavo Castillo Gaete, 36, who remains at large.
    "Everyone in this sect was a professional," Ampuero said. "We have someone who was a veterinarian and who worked as a flight attendant, we have a filmmaker, a draftsman. Everyone has a university degree."
    Police said Castillo Gaete, the ringleader, was last seen traveling to Peru to buy ayahuasca, a hallucinogenic brew plant that he used to control the members of the rite.
Comment by James Cox on April 26, 2013 at 8:36pm

11 points, where maybe there is present agreement? So if you found an exhaustive list, how would this fair?

Comment by Physeter on February 12, 2014 at 10:51pm

Depends on who had sent it to me. If it was sent by someone I cared to argue with, or someone I thought would benefit from seeing it rebutted, I would go through it line-by-line and point out the errors. I believe in some cases, it truly is worth it to reply to siliness like this, if there's a chance it will be seen by someone who might really listen.

I'd start by putting a big "citation needed" sign on every line in the "science then" column. I would then ask what is meant by "science," and when is meant by "then". If "then" refers to Bible times, I would point out that science as we know it did not exist back then. Science is a very specific process of learning about our world. It involves experiment, empirical observation, the changing and refining of inferior suppositions into more accurate ones, and repeatability. Nobody was doing that in Bible times. You can't say "science" once taught something just because some number of people once believed it.

I could refute every verse listed. Here's one. The verse 'proving' that the stars are "innumerable" actually says: "I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars in the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.’" So it's not making a scientific statement about the world. It's using a familiar metaphor of something that's really really big.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Forum

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Cato Rigas 38 minutes ago. 34 Replies

where when how who why ?

Started by aubrey knows nothing * in Small Talk. Last reply by Belle Rose 3 hours ago. 1 Reply

Blog Posts

coexist

Posted by aubrey knows nothing * on October 23, 2014 at 9:25pm 1 Comment

A Life-Changing Confrontation

Posted by Belle Rose on October 23, 2014 at 2:55am 7 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service