Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Why most alleged instances of scientific f...

Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 3:56:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Why most, if not all, alleged instances of claimed religious scientific foreknowledge are fraudulent

In religious debates, debaters often cite instances in which their holy books supposedly states a scientific fact that wasn't known by secular scientists until much later as proof that said holy book was authored by God. However, these claims are usually, if not always, false and based on wobbly logic and evidence. Claims of scientific foreknowledge in ancient religious texts are false and often times deceptive.

For an instance of religious scientific foreknowledge to be considered real, three criteria must be met: the religious text in question must talk about the scientific discovery, its content must be scientifically valid, and the so-called prediction must not be so vague or easy-to-guess that it could have been made by anyone. All currently extant claimed instances of scientific foreknowledge fail one or more of the criteria.

In many claimed cases of scientific foreknowledge, the scriptural passage does not actually talk about the scientific discovery that it is claimed to have talked about. This is a case of people trying to distort religious texts so that they appear to talk about a scientific discovery when it actually doesn't. For instance, a passage in the Bible which states that the Earth is a circle is often taken as evidence that the Bible's writers knew about the spherical shape of the Earth before scientists did; however, the passage actually used the Hebrew word for a "circle" rather than that for a "sphere", thereby making the claim that it talks about a round Earth false.

When a religious fanatic cannot find a scriptural passage that appears to talk about scientific discovery made after its authoring, he may choose to distort scientific discoveries to fit his holy book rather than distort his holy book to fit scientific discoveries. One example of this is the fictitious Taenia Tichurasis worm made up by a supposedly Muslim chain letter writer to support the Qu'ran's claim that swine is filthy. According to his or her chain letter, the worm, which lives in pork, can survive the extreme heat caused by cooking the meat, making it dangerous to eat. [1]The fact that the worm does not exist--although similarly named worms that live in pork but do not survive heat do--has not deterred the chain letter from spreading to a whole host of online bulletin boards for the Islamic religion, which regards lying as sinful. [2]

Another way in which an instance of scientific foreknowledge can be fabricated is to take a vague claim in a holy book and claim that it is scientific foreknowledge, even though it could have been just a guess. A holy book is bound to be so full of all kinds of vague guesses that some of them are going to turn out to be true, at least partially.

The fact that fraudulent instances of scientific foreknowledge are being peddled by "believers" of religions that oppose lying as evidence for their religions shows that religious apologetics may not always be the product of a person wanting to defend a religion that they genuinely believe in. Religious apologetics can be monitized by televangelists and website owners who like carrying camels through needle eyes. In addition, making a religion appear to be true would make more people accept it, which can become a benefit to those who seek to use said religion to promote political ideologies, such as nationalism.

[1]http://www.debate.org...
[2]http://www.islamweb.net...
:) nac
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 4:57:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 4:50:21 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
bump

I agree, Leugen. Although, I'm not sure if we could necessarily say dishonesty is intended. I think sometimes confirmation bias is to blame.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 4:59:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Like when the Bible said the universe is created and Scientist yell don't bring religion into this when a catholic priest conjectured the big bang theory?

Your assumption is whst ever Science says is the actual truth despite what ever claim a holybook makes.

Are you aware that the truth of a claim is a property of the claim and not it's source.

I would say scriptures from many religions are truthful before science has addressed them. And that sometimes the good books have been right and Scientist wrong.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 5:02:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 4:57:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:50:21 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
bump

I agree, Leugen. Although, I'm not sure if we could necessarily say dishonesty is intended. I think sometimes confirmation bias is to blame.

There are, however, egregiously fake cases of scientific foreknowledge that you can't help but believe to be hoaxes. In the health forum thread that I linked to, the OP kept on making false or half-true claims and refused to respond to any of the rebuttals posted by other users.
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 5:04:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 4:59:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Like when the Bible said the universe is created and Scientist yell don't bring religion into this when a catholic priest conjectured the big bang theory?

This fails criterion #1; the Bible does not talk about the Big Bang, and its description of the Big Bang is different from how we understand it today.

Your assumption is whst ever Science says is the actual truth despite what ever claim a holybook makes.

Never said that. I was talking about the misrepresentation of Science and/or holy books, rather than their validity.

Are you aware that the truth of a claim is a property of the claim and not it's source.

I would say scriptures from many religions are truthful before science has addressed them. And that sometimes the good books have been right and Scientist wrong.
:) nac
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 5:24:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 5:02:06 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:57:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:50:21 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
bump

I agree, Leugen. Although, I'm not sure if we could necessarily say dishonesty is intended. I think sometimes confirmation bias is to blame.

There are, however, egregiously fake cases of scientific foreknowledge that you can't help but believe to be hoaxes. In the health forum thread that I linked to, the OP kept on making false or half-true claims and refused to respond to any of the rebuttals posted by other users.

Oh, sorry, L. I didn't look at the links. That thread looks like most of the evolution threads in the religion and science forums. i.e. rejection of facts in favor of spurious alternatives.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 5:25:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 4:59:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Like when the Bible said the universe is created and Scientist yell don't bring religion into this when a catholic priest conjectured the big bang theory?

Your assumption is whst ever Science says is the actual truth despite what ever claim a holybook makes.

Are you aware that the truth of a claim is a property of the claim and not it's source.

: I would say scriptures from many religions are truthful before science has addressed them. And that sometimes the good books have been right and Scientist wrong.

Name one.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 8:40:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 5:02:06 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:57:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:50:21 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
bump

I agree, Leugen. Although, I'm not sure if we could necessarily say dishonesty is intended. I think sometimes confirmation bias is to blame.

There are, however, egregiously fake cases of scientific foreknowledge that you can't help but believe to be hoaxes. In the health forum thread that I linked to, the OP kept on making false or half-true claims and refused to respond to any of the rebuttals posted by other users.

Why should I accept criteria one? Language changes. And the way someone describes things a hundred years ago is different than the way it is described today.

What is known is that the Bible talks about a created finite expanding sky. A concept rejected by Scientist until recently.

The words maybe different but the contention should not be on the words but the resolution and details of thr conceptual models created
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 9:10:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 5:25:35 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:59:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Like when the Bible said the universe is created and Scientist yell don't bring religion into this when a catholic priest conjectured the big bang theory?

Your assumption is whst ever Science says is the actual truth despite what ever claim a holybook makes.

Are you aware that the truth of a claim is a property of the claim and not it's source.

: I would say scriptures from many religions are truthful before science has addressed them. And that sometimes the good books have been right and Scientist wrong.

Name one.

In Leviticus after a persons boils have discharged to be clean they have to wash thier body and clothing in running water.

For centuries after ancient romans and even modern doctors thought a rinse in standing water was sanitary enough to be clean.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 9:33:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:10:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/8/2016 5:25:35 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:59:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Like when the Bible said the universe is created and Scientist yell don't bring religion into this when a catholic priest conjectured the big bang theory?

Your assumption is whst ever Science says is the actual truth despite what ever claim a holybook makes.

Are you aware that the truth of a claim is a property of the claim and not it's source.

: I would say scriptures from many religions are truthful before science has addressed them. And that sometimes the good books have been right and Scientist wrong.

Name one.

In Leviticus after a persons boils have discharged to be clean they have to wash thier body and clothing in running water.

For centuries after ancient romans and even modern doctors thought a rinse in standing water was sanitary enough to be clean.

Running water is only useful if it's not from a contaminated source. Just running water, e.g. poured from a vessel, could have any number of contaminants in it and be more dangerous than a rinse with clean standing water. That's not anything where religion trumped science in any way. If that's he best you've got then your argument is without merit.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 9:42:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:10:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/8/2016 5:25:35 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:59:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Like when the Bible said the universe is created and Scientist yell don't bring religion into this when a catholic priest conjectured the big bang theory?

Your assumption is whst ever Science says is the actual truth despite what ever claim a holybook makes.

Are you aware that the truth of a claim is a property of the claim and not it's source.

: I would say scriptures from many religions are truthful before science has addressed them. And that sometimes the good books have been right and Scientist wrong.

Name one.

In Leviticus after a persons boils have discharged to be clean they have to wash thier body and clothing in running water.

For centuries after ancient romans and even modern doctors thought a rinse in standing water was sanitary enough to be clean.
Leviticus 14 is gods prescribed medical treatment of leprosy.
Is that what hospitals do?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 9:43:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:33:59 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:10:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/8/2016 5:25:35 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:59:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Like when the Bible said the universe is created and Scientist yell don't bring religion into this when a catholic priest conjectured the big bang theory?

Your assumption is whst ever Science says is the actual truth despite what ever claim a holybook makes.

Are you aware that the truth of a claim is a property of the claim and not it's source.

: I would say scriptures from many religions are truthful before science has addressed them. And that sometimes the good books have been right and Scientist wrong.

Name one.

In Leviticus after a persons boils have discharged to be clean they have to wash thier body and clothing in running water.

For centuries after ancient romans and even modern doctors thought a rinse in standing water was sanitary enough to be clean.

Running water is only useful if it's not from a contaminated source. Just running water, e.g. poured from a vessel, could have any number of contaminants in it and be more dangerous than a rinse with clean standing water. That's not anything where religion trumped science in any way. If that's he best you've got then your argument is without merit.

The word for 'running' in hebrew doesn't merely mean moving. I'm sorry the translation from a 4000 year old language to modern English wasn't rendered 'potable'

Thanks for wasting my time and replying instead of investigating for 5 minutes on your own.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 9:59:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:43:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:33:59 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:10:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/8/2016 5:25:35 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:59:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Like when the Bible said the universe is created and Scientist yell don't bring religion into this when a catholic priest conjectured the big bang theory?

Your assumption is whst ever Science says is the actual truth despite what ever claim a holybook makes.

Are you aware that the truth of a claim is a property of the claim and not it's source.

: I would say scriptures from many religions are truthful before science has addressed them. And that sometimes the good books have been right and Scientist wrong.

Name one.

In Leviticus after a persons boils have discharged to be clean they have to wash thier body and clothing in running water.

For centuries after ancient romans and even modern doctors thought a rinse in standing water was sanitary enough to be clean.

Running water is only useful if it's not from a contaminated source. Just running water, e.g. poured from a vessel, could have any number of contaminants in it and be more dangerous than a rinse with clean standing water. That's not anything where religion trumped science in any way. If that's he best you've got then your argument is without merit.

The word for 'running' in hebrew doesn't merely mean moving. I'm sorry the translation from a 4000 year old language to modern English wasn't rendered 'potable'

Thanks for wasting my time and replying instead of investigating for 5 minutes on your own.

potable water
מים שפירים

running water
מים זורמים

Now I don't speak the language, but these look like very different word combinations to me. Care to explain how one could get confused with the other? Oh, and potable is not a synonym for clean or sanitary. I suppose you could have spent the time needed to figure that out.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 10:00:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:59:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:43:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:33:59 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:10:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/8/2016 5:25:35 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:59:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Like when the Bible said the universe is created and Scientist yell don't bring religion into this when a catholic priest conjectured the big bang theory?

Your assumption is whst ever Science says is the actual truth despite what ever claim a holybook makes.

Are you aware that the truth of a claim is a property of the claim and not it's source.

: I would say scriptures from many religions are truthful before science has addressed them. And that sometimes the good books have been right and Scientist wrong.

Name one.

In Leviticus after a persons boils have discharged to be clean they have to wash thier body and clothing in running water.

For centuries after ancient romans and even modern doctors thought a rinse in standing water was sanitary enough to be clean.

Running water is only useful if it's not from a contaminated source. Just running water, e.g. poured from a vessel, could have any number of contaminants in it and be more dangerous than a rinse with clean standing water. That's not anything where religion trumped science in any way. If that's he best you've got then your argument is without merit.

The word for 'running' in hebrew doesn't merely mean moving. I'm sorry the translation from a 4000 year old language to modern English wasn't rendered 'potable'

Thanks for wasting my time and replying instead of investigating for 5 minutes on your own.

potable water
מים שפירים

running water
מים זורמים

Now I don't speak the language, but these look like very different word combinations to me. Care to explain how one could get confused with the other? Oh, and potable is not a synonym for clean or sanitary. I suppose you could have spent the time needed to figure that out.

Sorry, the actual figures didn't carry but you can see the ASCII for the characters does not match. Running and Potable are different words.