Tags
evidence for Jesus, jesus shroud, science, shroud of Turin, skepticism, testing the shroud of Turin
Getting back to my main focus of defeating pseudoscience, I am painfully aware that even many years after something is debunked, it is still touted as proof of some kind.
This leads us to the infamous Shroud of Turin. The shroud’s website claims that it is the most studied human artifact in history, and although this seems pretty steep, I do not doubt it. The reason is it so studied, and the reason that debunking fails to silence shroud proponents, is because the image on the shroud is supposed to be that of Jesus of Nazareth.
But, as we will see below, the shroud is far from the genuine article. In fact, it is only about 700 years old.
One Shred of Evidence?
The reason why the shroud remains relevant is because of its significant religious importance. In debate, this is seemingly the only physical evidence that can be produced to prove some aspect of Christianity true. Of course the religious will say otherwise, like we have found pieces of the Ark [not true], or there is geologic evidence of a global flood [not true], or that we have Jesus’ DNA on a spear somewhere [not true]. Like all of these claims, the shroud is powerful enough in religious circles to create faith and support, and maybe this is good enough for them, but shouldn’t we try to at least confirm it?
Beautiful and interesting, but not Jesus
Science and Religion
It always amazes me how scientific evidence is always on the defensive with religion. Religious claims have not one single piece of evidence that can be pointed to. Not one thing that stands up to scrutiny at least. Why should the burden of proof be upon science to prove religious claims wrong? Since science is the most useful, fruitful, and successful human endeavor ever undertaken (all based upon evidence and reason) shouldn’t the burden be upon those who wish to show that their claims, so far independent of science, hold water?
It’s not like science tries to disprove religion either. Science has a rigorous set of standards that it applies to all claims, no exceptions. Any bias against religion is misinterpreted, as science would be wary of any belief system that makes grand claims about the universe with no proof, no logic, no evidence. Additionally, lack of evidence does not make a claim stronger!
“You have to have faith” is not an argument. Imagine that argument in a non-religious context:
Me: Listen up folks, I’ve gathered you here to test out my experimental new jet pack flying machine.
Guinea Pigs: Awesome! How did you make it?
Me: Late one night I was inspired to create it, crazy right? And I’m not even an engineer!
Guinea Pigs: OK…Does it even fly aerodynamically? Does it follow the laws of physics? Have you tested it?
Me: Don’t worry about it, I have faith that it will work. Now who’s first?
This is plainly a ridiculous way to support an argument, so why isn’t it considered just as ridiculous in a religious context?
So, when the shroud was discovered, it became the one piece of evidence that could give legitimacy to religious claims. For years it remained untested, merely assumed to be the unmistakable mark of Christ himself. It remained mysterious and shrouded in secrecy [ha]. It undoubtedly gave many believers more reasons to remain faithful, but wouldn’t it be even more significant if it could be deemed legitimate by the great explainer science? Science would gladly accept any evidence that passed skeptical scrutiny. It would even have to possibly change some views if the shroud proved to be authentic. So what did science discover?
So Jesus Was Buried 1200 Years after His Death?
The most recent study of the shroud, published in the journal Nature (completed 21 years ago and still the shroud is considered proof!) summarizes its results:
The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 – 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is medieval. This 13th to 14th century dating matches the first appearance of the shroud in church history.
The results of radiocarbon measurements from the three laboratories on four textile samples, a total of twelve data sets, show that none of the measurements differs from its appropriate mean value by more than two standard deviations. The results for the three control samples agree well with previous radiocarbon measurements and/or historical dates.
There you have it. What we have in reality is an elaborate forgery, perpetuated by non-critical acceptance of the religious value of the shroud. It is no doubt a great piece of art, and at first glance very enticing to the believer. But as science has proved, the shroud is no more than a fairly recent depiction of a Jesus-like figure, perhaps created to keep the faith, as it were.
Kyle, I have posted an extensive comment at http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/.
Dan Porter
Pingback: The Shroud of Turin Defended « Science-Based Life
The Carbon-14 test sample was taken from an area of the shroud that had a nearly invisible patch. They didn’t know it at the time, but science has recently proven this. The Shroud is but one of a whole world of evidences though. Science is very often confused with scientific opinion. Scientific opinion, such as belief in evolution, is only an interpretation of the evidence.
Could you specify your “world of evidences”?
I took a look at your blog, and you stated that after learning about evolution etc., you realized the truth of Jesus. This was because you realized that there are “different ways of looking at the same evidence”.
This is actually the antithesis of the scientific process. Evolution is not simply one way of looking at the evidence, is it the synthesis of multiple independent lines of evidence that all point to the same answer. Not every point of view is valid in science, that’s how knowledge positively progresses.
Additionally, if an interpretation of the evidence is scientific opinion and not science, what is your definition of science? Science doesn’t include fantasies like creationism because it has no objective evidence to evaluate, makes no testable hypotheses, and is clearly using post-hoc reasoning to make religious beliefs seem more scientific.
I am unaware of a definition of science that includes evolution as only “scientific opinion”.
When I speak of a world of evidence, I am speaking of “multiple independent lines of evidence that all point to the same answer.” Sorry for using your excellent choice of words.
There is evidence upon evidence that supports the Bible. The Bible in itself serves as a scientific interpretation of the world around us, and it is the best explanation of the facts. Most people don’t know that however, because the Bible has been censored in such a way that it is viewed as “Religion.”
The situation is like a court case. The opposing lawyers present a totally different view of the facts. The Evolution team has managed to suppress Creationism, and much of the support for the Biblical view. Sometimes, it isn’t the truth that wins, but the best lawyers. The “Church” has also done a lousy job of getting the truth across.
In each of my posts, I try to present a piece of the evidence. I may mention something relating to Archaeology, such as the shroud, the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Septuagint, or I may offer an interpretation of a Bible verse that makes sense. My weakness is that I’m not a very good writer, and I’m very disorganized. That doesn’t mean that I’m wrong.
I just want to jump in here to say I disagree with most of what ‘themysteryof’ is saying here. The Bible is NOT scientific interpretation. It is pretty bad as history, as well. Creationism, for those who believe in it, should be allowed to flourish in the realm of religion, but only there. It should never be passed off as science in our secular schools because it isn’t science. Frankly, I don’t even think creationism (or Intelligent Design) is good orthodox Christianity (mainstream Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Protestant traditions). Frankly, in Episcopal Church — my church, most people strongly support evolution and utterly reject creationism as science. They also don’t think of the Bible as historical narrative. Having said that, since this was about the Shroud of Turin, I do think that it is real. But, if that could be proven, I don’t think it could prove much.
Thanks Dan for supporting the rational view here.
No, being disorganized or “not a very good writer” does not make you wrong. Incorrect definitions of science and evidence make you wrong.
First, there is not one single aspect of evidence that proves any supernatural claim in the Bible to be true. If you know of any, I would like to take a look at it. You say there is evidence, but do not mention any of it.
Second, the Bible is most certainly not a “scientific interpretation of the world around us”. Again, your definition of science is incorrect. The Bible may state something metaphorically that happens to be true in modern science, but this is not science. Science is built on models, hypotheses, empirical observations, and falsification. The Bible exhibits exactly zero of these qualities. It is not falsifiable (according to Christians), it makes no predictions about the nature of the world based on observations, and it is consistently proven wrong on matters of science.
If you say that the Bible is “the best interpretation of the facts”, then you must be ready to admit that the Earth is at the center of the universe, that humanity sprung up from inbreeding brothers and sisters, and that there was a great flood that wiped out all life on Earth expect for one family and some animals, etc. This of course is not the best interpretation of the facts. Don’t you think that a book, supposedly written by the most powerful and all-knowing being in the universe would know that the Earth is not at the center of the universe? Likewise, why is the Bible so consistently wrong about science if it is “perfect”? How is it that the creator of the universe knew nothing about how the body worked, knew nothing about the mind-brain connection, knew nothing about disease, etc., but instead thought it more important to legitimatize slavery, sexism, and homophobia?
These views are hard to reconcile for people of faith, but it only is hard when viewing the Bible as divinely authored. The more realistic view, backed up by analytical history, is that the Bible was a compilation of mythologies and parables, constructed by tribesmen in a time lacking any notions of science, in order to make sense of the world around them. As humans, we have a psychological tendency to see design, attribute agency to acts of nature, and to see patterns, whether any of it is based in reality. When we realize this, we see that the Bible is wrong about modern science because it was written by people simply trying to make sense of the world. In short, prayer, devotion, and faith are not scientific, they are superstitious human rationalizations.
Lastly, arguing that the Bible or creationism has been “suppressed” or “censored”, is really just a way of saying that science doesn’t take the claim seriously, and it shouldn’t, as it has no reason to. The problem with arguing within a conspiracy theory framework is that no amount of evidence will ever be able to disprove the conspiracy, because proponents will not ideologically budge for anything. I ask you: is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind about something like evolution? It isn’t that creationism has been suppressed, it is that creationism has been shown to be empirically and categorically false. Evolution is backed up by over 140 years of empirical evidence, observation, and theory. Creationism, in stark contrast, is backed up by nothing expect one old book. Let’s take one claim: “the Earth is 6000 years old”. If creationism were true, this claim would be backed up by empirical observations and evidence. Instead, every single relevant field of science disproves this claim. And instead of moving on, creationism desperately clings to the claim, because one book told them it was true. This is not scientific. Incorporation of new evidence is integral to the progress of knowledge. When new evidence is ignored, as it is in creationism and Biblical claims, what you have is pseudoscience and falsities.
I encourage you to look up a concise definition of “science”, and try to fit it within the jumbled mysticism that is the Bible.
Kyle, you say, “Science is built on models, hypotheses, empirical observations, and falsification.” Yes, but it might be more correct to say that science uses these and that these are believed to be philosophically correct. Science rests on the shoulders of philosophy. And philosophy changes. Falsifiability, for instance, is relatively new thinking in science since the end of World War II (primarily Sir Karl Popper). In a sense it upended the old scientific method with a new scientific method. It served us well in understanding that creationism is not science. But, remember, it is a “philosophical” building block of science. Even, today, philosophers are questioning it. It is unproven. Think about it. The definition of science is a work in progress. Falsifiability is unproven. So are simple tools like Occam (created as a tool for theology).
I’m quite comfortable believing that the philosophy of science is correct. That is why I am quite comfortable with evolution and even the possibility of a multiverse. But, in the end, I know the foundation is belief. I’m comfortable, too, in believing in God and supernatural events in history. There is plenty of evidence, as I see it. But it is not scientific.
Kyle, you might be interested in two articles that appeared in the Stateman. First, I’m a Believer ( http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/04/god-believe-faith-world-belief), which includes statements from 30 prominent people half of whom are scientists and Faith No More ( http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/07/god-evidence-believe-world) which covers the other side of the question.
Your explanation of the Bible was excellent until you wrote: “In short, prayer, devotion, and faith are not scientific, they are superstitious human rationalizations.”
How as a scientist do you know they are superstitious human rationalizations? You don’t. You are stating a belief. (yes, I know there have been prayer experiments, but you, as a scientist know how flawed they are. And I am also aware of the latest developments in neuroscience, some that go so far as to embrace concepts such as no freedom of choice. That would be a bummer).
I see no conflict between what I believe in science and what I believe about God and Christ. And that includes belief in miracles, etc.
Dan Porter
It is undoubted that science is basically a philosophy in practice, and because of this we cannot truly prove its method (say as we could for mathematics). But I think that we are getting caught up in philosophical terms. The term “unproven” says little for the overall utility of science. Although we cannot prove it the way we can prove 2+2=4, it is hard to argue that science is not the most useful tool ever devised for interpreting the universe. As this utility is undeniable, it is then not a stretch to apply it to other claims, such as supernatural ones. To suspend the utility of science to indulge a theistic point of view is, I think, disingenuous to yourself and your reason. The amount of evidence about the world that you must suspend for supernatural and theistic claims to be true undermines the feasibility of the entire practice of faith.
Again falsifiability may be “unproven”, but nothing is science is ever really proven. That of course is a beauty of science; It allows itself to be constantly updated. We only consider something as “fact” when the preponderance of evidence allows for temporary agreement of that designation. Fact is a colloquial term, but for all intents and purposes, many scientific “facts” would require nothing short of a miracle to make them anything less than given truths.
Given all of this, I see that you must be operating under two different frameworks of evidence, given that you do not apply scientific evidence to your faith-based beliefs. And that is absolutely fine, but it should be made clear that if your beliefs about God etc. are off limits to a scientific discussion, we will only argue in circles around that point.
P.S. Thank you for commenting on my Bible-dissection, and I very much liked the “Faith No More” article, it was a perfect list of reasons not to believe in a deity.
K.C.H
Kyle,
In your comment, on the first of August, you are repeating misinterpretations and falsehoods about the Bible that you have heard somewhere. I am very limited by time, and must refer you to some things I have already written.
The Bible may not primarily be a science book, but here’s what we could expect, if it is what it claims to be. You would expect it to be written for people in various conditions, from primitive to advanced civilizations. You should find some things in the Bible that would only be properly understood by people in the context of their own time. Here and there, you should find a scientific statement that would appear to be supernatural, until a certain level of knowledge has been achieved.
I copied that phrase from part 2 of “all the Mud,” in my April 2010 archives. It is about Noah’s flood. I have two posts titled, “the Evidence,” in Oct. 2010, and one in the preceding month. Those are just a beginning of a list of evidences. Other posts I’ve made that mention either the Science of the Bible that is ahead of its time, or its foreknowledge are, “the Septuagint” in May 2010, and parts 1-5 of “Antichrist’s Control” in May and June of this year.
To say that:
is to commit at least two logical errors.
First, you are a priori assuming that everything the Bible has to say is accurate and factual. It doesn’t matter if a god wrote it or not, if you are assuming a conclusion before you start reasoning you are not reasoning correctly. What you are in effect doing is making the facts fit your prior assumptions, and this is the confirmation bias. This refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs. Every time the Bible and science happen to coincide (which happens very infrequently), you make a mental note of it, but forget the legion of other times when the Bible is consistently proven wrong about science. Again, assuming everything the Bible says to be true before you see the evidence clouds any reasoned judgment.
Second, you are committing the Moving Goalpost logical fallacy. This is a method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for “proof” or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists. If new evidence comes to light meeting the prior criteria, the goalpost is pushed back further – keeping it out of range of the new evidence for the purpose of denying an undesirable conclusion. Saying that we will see the Bible is right about science once we acquire more knowledge, is moving the goalpost back, and ignoring all the science that already disproves Biblical claims.
There is absolutely no way to reconcile a truly scientific view of the world with the literal claims made by the Bible. There are not two interpretations of the evidence that show that the Earth could possibly be 6,000 years old, for example. You must either admit that the Bible is wrong about these claims, in the face of the evidence, or abandon a scientific discussion.
Kyle,
You said, “First, you are a priori assuming that everything the Bible has to say is accurate and factual. It doesn’t matter if a god wrote it or not, if you are assuming a conclusion before you start reasoning you are not reasoning correctly. What you are in effect doing is making the facts fit your prior assumptions, and this is the confirmation bias.”
That which you accuse me of, is exactly what evolutionary science is doing. You said earlier that evolution was backed by more than140 of science. More than a century of evolutionary propaganda has established a mindset that is closed to any other interpretation. Scientists could fit every bit of factual scientific knowledge we’ve gained in the past century into a framework that accepts the Bible, if they were inclined to do so. Alas, that is not to happen, according to the Bible.
That is absolutely false. The only reason that evolution is an accepted theory is that it is backed by evidence. Science would gladly accept an alternative if backed by adequate evidence (it would surely create a lot of new careers and funding opportunities).
You are playing intellectual victim here.
Kyle,
Some scientists would accept an alternative if they could be shown enough evidence. Becoming a Creationist very often has an adverse effect upon your career though. You must not have seen the Ben Stein documentary, “Expelled.” I personally know of more than one science teacher who has been forced to keep what they really believe quiet, or lose their jobs. All the inhabitants of Earth are intellectual victims.
Somewhere in an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica on the sedimentary layers, I came upon an honest statement. It was a 70′s set of encyclopedias and I’m sure it would be worded differently in the newer versions, but nothing has changed except the cover-up is more thorough now. It said, “No satisfactory explanation exists for the sedimentary layers that cover the earth. To think that these could have been caused by the ocean boggles the mind.”
That is from memory, and may not be word for word. The writer (a scientist) meant that he didn’t accept the story of Noah’s flood, and didn’t want to think that multiple great floods were responsible, so we were left without an explanation. Modern geology has explanations for the minor, superficial layers, and they beat all around the bush about the others, but they do not, and can not explain them. The Bible remains the best explanation.
The same basic thing is true of the Shroud of Turin. They have not been able to reproduce anything that matches the shroud, and the Carbon-14 test was useless because of the patching of the shroud.
“Expelled” has already been exposed as crank propaganda, and if you are a science teacher you cannot insert religious cannon (creationism) into the classroom. The supreme court has backed this up. It doesn’t matter what you really believe. Science is true regardless of your convictions. This is the same reason why geography classes do not include flat-earth theory, or why physics class does not include lessons on cold fusion. Creationism is not allowed, and should not be allowed in a science classroom simply because creationism is not science. No one is trying to “suppress” you or hide the “truth”. It is as if you are arguing for geocentrism because it’s what you really believe. You can and do believe things even when they are wrong. In this case you are wrong about the scientific merit of creationism. This is not the “man keeping you down”, this is simply an objective evaluation of the evidence.
Before you reply again and claim that there is all this “evidence” and that “the Bible is scientific”, please review what the current definition of scienceis.
Lastly, concerning your flood example, you are again committing a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. You are stating that because science does not currently have an explanation, that your explanation must be correct. This is not logically correct. Saying that there is no answer, therefore you are right, is nonsensical. Science thrives in the unknown, this is how science progresses, but it does not imply that suddenly a supernatural explanation is more plausible. You are confusing unexplained with unexplainable. Science does not currently have a “satisfactory explanation” for what gravity is, does this mean that therefore the Bible must be true? Of course not, and this does not follow from the argument or the evidence. Furthermore, there is no independent historical or archaeological evidence that Moses ever existed, making this whole exchange meaningless. You are learning nothing from a literal interpretation of the Bible besides some history and story-telling.
Do you see how the structure of this argument is faulty?: You don’t have an answer, therefore I am right.
You are also relying on another logical fallacy called the argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot imagine how an event took place, or just because it “boggles the mind”, does not mean that it did not happen the way the evidence points to. I imagine that you also can’t wrap your head around how evolution could possibly work. This does not mean that it doesn’t work, it only means that you are uneducated about the science.
Kyle,
One thing I like about the blogs is the freedom to present your ideas. I’ve only been blocked by one blogger for insisting on connecting Biblical statements and statements of science. To not do so would be like trying to teach evolution without referring to any authors who have set forth that theory. I thank you for allowing my comments. If you’ll permit one more, I intend to go on to other things because of the time factor.
Like you, I once believed in evolution. I believed it because I had been given no other explanation. No one taught me most of the the things I’m writing about. I found them in the Bible, which I began reading mainly because I’m a reader. I did not even hear of Creationism until years later.
It was a stroke of genius to cast the writings of the Biblical authors as religion, and those of the evolutionary writers as science. That way the Bible can be censored from the most critical areas of public education. You believe that a non-intelligent force created life and the material universe. I believe that force exhibits signs of intelligence, and possesses life, and is therefore a being. I believe he has sought to commune with man since the creation, and that Jesus is the manifestation of that being in a human body.
The Bible doesn’t teach that the earth is flat, or the center of the universe. Those were the ideas of some scientists and theologians of centuries past. Those ideas were the result of poor translation of ancient writings, and poor interpretation of the scientific observations of the time. The same basic thing is happening today when Christians accept the evolutionist’s interpretation of the Bible, and of the world around us. A proper interpretation of both would cure the problem.
I think the reason that you were blocked may have something to do with the fact that you are not responding to any of my arguments. Saying that you have to “move on” because of time isn’t even a clever way to dodge an argument, it’s fairly lazy.
I’m sorry to say that if you were properly taught evolution and the scientific method, there would be no room for doubt. A lack of trust in the fact of evolution is simply a lack of knowledge on the subject. I am more than happy to answer any of your questions that you have about evolution, but to make any headway, you have to start by first responding to my arguments.
Again, no one is censoring religion or religious teaching. Religion is certainly a more powerful force in America society than science is, as no atheist could ever be elected (at least not in the near future). There is no establishment that is systematically holding back religious explanations. If the religious explanations are refuted, that is because they have been found to have no scientific merit. As I have argued in the previous comments, show me one speck of evidence, independent from the Bible, that proves a Biblical claim true. The lack of evidence is why creationism is not taught in science class, not disdain for religion.
Also, I don’t think that you have read the Bible carefully enough. The Bible states explicitly that the Earth is a flat object, at the center of the universe (geocentrism), beneath a static (non-expanding) universe. To pass those falsehoods off on “scientists of centuries past” is disingenuous and not true. The Bible is supposedly written by the most powerful being imaginable, and he says that the Earth is flat (and he is wrong).
You are still assuming that the Bible is the only thing that humanity can look to for answers. How close-minded and foolish this would be. To ignore the findings of modern science, or the wealth of history from ancient Greece or Alexandria, is to be intentionally ignorant in favor of an old book that you supposedly only believe because you were born into a Christian household. If you were born in Iran, for example, you would believe in the Qu’ran, and you would look to it for all your answers. This is still ignorance of the world.
This has been “fun” responding to all of your comments, but if you decide to continue this discussion, please start responding to my arguments. If you do not address them, I see no reason for this debate to continue.
All the best,
KCH
Pingback: The Evangelical New Atheist Movement « Shroud of Turin Blog
Kyle,
I will make a further comment, but it will have to wait a day or two. I’m very busy right now. Thanks for allowing the comments.
Kyle,
Realistically speaking, nothing should exist. It doesn’t make sense that even lifeless matter would exist. Matter is evidence of the existence of God. You can question where God came from if you want to, but where did matter come from? That is a question of the same magnitude.
If there was no life, there would certainly be no awareness of anything. Life is evidence of God. Is it really more impossible for God to exist than it is for us? If you don’t want to believe that God created matter, and life, then you have to believe that life was spontaneously generated from non-living matter. Then you still haven’t explained the existence of matter.
Matter must be ordered in very specific ways to support life. Everything has to be just right. The order that exists in creation is evidence of God. “Evolution” is the magic word of science. Everything supposedly changed into something else, but you don’t see that in nature. Living things adapt, but they don’t change into another kind of thing. Cats beget cats, people beget people, nuts and seeds reproduce the same kind of plant they came from. That is evidence against evolution. Science can modify life somewhat, but that is science, not evolution.
Evolutionists take advantage of the natural estrangement of mankind from God, to attract people to their theory. That estrangement is actually evidence of God’s existence, because people tend to see only what they want to see. In other words, man is not really looking for God. They would rather believe in Evolution.
Whether young or old, all of us who believe in Jesus had to be won over to that idea. Christians are evidence of God, though often not very good evidence. I wasn’t raised in a Christian environment, but even if I was, that wouldn’t automatically make me a Christian. We each have to believe in Jesus of our own free will.
Good and evil are evidences of the existence of God, and of a Devil (God-good, Evil-Devil). From there it makes sense that God would strive to reveal himself to mankind. You would therefore have testimonies to that effect, which would find their way into a collection of books, which is what the word “Bible” means.
If the testimonies are authentic, you would find information in them beyond the scope of man’s knowledge at the time of writing. The writer (or writers) of Genesis for instance could not have known of a boundary between our atmosphere, and outer space beyond, yet the writer just happened to get it right. Our atmosphere is called the open (sometimes translated “face”) firmament. Outer space is simply spoken of as the firmament, or expanse. The word “expanse”, would indicate an expanding universe. Collectively, these are called “heaven,” or “the heavens.” In the New Testament, Paul makes this even more distinct, by using the term “third heaven,” to identify the realm of God.
I bet that if science were to advance far enough, we could take a rib from man and obtain stem cells to create a female counterpart of man. There’s no need to do that however, since God already created “woman.” Beauty is evidence of the existence of God, not that beauty doesn’t sometimes mask danger. Earth is a beautiful place, and even the most desolate places have their own special grandeur. Earth’s beauty is marred by chaos that is evidence of the “fall of man.”
Isaiah 40:22 speaks of the “circle of the earth.” I think the Hebrew word could there have been translated as “sphere.” The word is translated elsewhere in the Bible as “circuit,” which is probably the most accurate. The earth does make a circuit around the sun.
The Bible does not say that the earth is flat, and it wouldn’t speak of the earth as circular in one passage, and rectangular in another. The Bible does use expressions and figures of speech, as we do today. We speak of sunrise, and sunset. When we say, “sundown,” we don’t literally mean the sun is going down somewhere, but only from our perspective. The Bible uses the expression, “corners of the earth.” We might say, “the far corners, or the ends of the earth,” which amounts to the same thing. The Bible uses “four corners,” to indicate the directions North, South, East, and West. When critics of the Bible speak of its lack of scientific accuracy, this is the sort of thing they’re talking about. Few of their criticisms are anything other than nitpicking.
I’m not against an honest question, or critique, but the usual aim of these things is deception. The Bible does not say that the earth is the center of the universe, or anything of the sort. Most often the church goes along with the science that is current. When those theories must be modified, or abandoned, the church is left holding the bag. They’ve reinterpreted the Bible to accomodate science, and haven’t stuck with the truth. After a while, you can’t tell whether it was science or religion that was originally at fault.
You can take a good look back at at the Bible and see it was not in the wrong. Falsehood is the result of poor interpretation of either the Bible, or the world around us. I intend to rework this comment, and post it to my blog this week. I had to switch shifts at work, and I don’t have time to do anything else. Most of what I’ve written here are generalities, but I think you can see what I’m getting at if you will. Again, thank you for allowing the comments.
I don’t get where you got these absurd ideas from themysteryof, but nonetheless I shall reply and elaborate the stupendous ridiculousness of your claims.
-Why is the existence of matter and life proof of the evidence of ‘God’? Why not Allah, Yahweh, Lord Brahma or a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Even if it ‘is’ proof, as you claim, it can be proof of any creator, not necessarily your Christian god.
-We have mathematical evidence that supports the Big Bang, and hence it is the most acceptable scenario which explains the origin of our universe and everything in it.
-We do not believe that life came spontaneously from non-living matter. There is a well-thought-of theory of chemical evolution.
-Darwinian natural selection works perfectly and makes perfect sense. Things tend to start out simple, and given enough time, they gradually become complex. We are looking now from a very advanced stage or level, where every life form, including us, has reached a very complex stage.
- Creationism makes more problems than it solves and it raises the ultimate question: who designed the designer? Also, for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent designer(something so complex) to exist is even more improbable than the ridiculous assumption of life spontaneously appearing.
-Evolution or natural selection is a phenomena that occurs over billions of years, of course we’re not going to witness it, and of course cats will give birth to similar cats, but notwithstanding, we have witnessed some notable genetic mutations in some plants. What you claim to be evidence against evolution is utmost ridiculous, natural selection makes perfect sense and is perfectly logical.
- The many imperfections in our body are evidence against ‘Intelligent Design’, where our bodies seem to have originally been designed to walk on all fours and hence most of us experience back pain. More examples: the appendix, the 13th rib, collar bone…
-There is overwhelming evidence of evolution and I will merely state one:
We have found structures in eukaryotic cell mitochondria that would only be functional if the cell were independent, and hence now, when cells work in groups, are utterly useless. Which suggests that the cell once worked independently.
-Your interpretation of Isaiah 40:22 is ironically humorous but utterly ridiculous. You just took the word ‘circuit’, where it could’ve meant anything, and interpreted Earth’s orbit which is actually elliptical. Circuit is probably the most indirect term to refer to the Earth’s orbit. The Hebrew for ‘sphere’ could not have possible been mistranslated into two very similar terms ‘Circle’ & ‘Circuit’ which manifests what the word actually implied.
-The rest of your evidence is merely absurd irrational deductions. Best one was “Christians prove God’s existence”. (I would like to sincerely thank you for giving me the laugh of a lifetime)
-The Earth is indeed a beautiful place, but it is definitely not ‘intelligently designed’. 70% of the Earth is uninhabitable water, and 1/3 of the inhabitable land is desert, not to mention the uninhabitable mountainous regions(such as the Himalayas) and the Arctic regions. That is definitely unintelligent design to any sane individual. The fact that the Earth lies in a Goldilocks zone that enables it to support life is a mere coincidence in a prodigiously vast universe. We’re the ones sitting on the needle in the haystack, ignorantly claiming the improbability of finding the needle.
- The use of the term ‘corners’ was definitely not placed to indirectly imply the directions, if it was used in it’s geometrical meaning.
- I doubt any artist can reproduce Leonardo Di Vinci’s Mona Lisa drawing, but that is not proof nor evidence of the existence of a Mona Lisa goddess or messiah. That is why I would suggest Leonardo Di Vinci was the one who had drawn the shroud, if the dating didn’t indicate to a time when he wasn’t even born yet.
- I will just name one absurdity in your Bible, needless to mention the other lot:
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
(Which indicates the flatness of the Earth.)
- Kyle, I perfectly understand why you did not reply to him. Keep up the good work. *We will continue to poor drops of knowledge into the sea of ignorance, no matter how ridiculous and time-wasting some of the ignorant are.
Edwin,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to themysterof’s claims. I very much agree with all of your points; I was going to make many of the same, but had lost interest.
I would just like to add one more to your point on evolution: we can in fact see evolution in action. For an example, the reason that we are constantly having to develop new drugs against infection and disease is because bacteria and viruses evolve to resist them. As another example, because the fruit fly has such a short life span, under certain environmental pressures, we can see genetic evolution in a matter of weeks or months. Furthermore, whenever you see a bulldog or a dalmatian, you are seeing evolution guided by our own hands in our own lifetime. Once you look for it and see it, the evidence is indisputable.
Again, that was a great rebuttal Edwin. I would caution you on your use of terms like “ridiculous” and “to any sane individual”, etc. The point of science advocacy and scientific understanding is not to ridicule but to understand. Otherwise, nice job.