Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Pagan temples. But not libraries.

---

The initial order was for pagan temples. But fanatical "christians" could not let that source of knowledge in the Library go, and burned it down too.

Till the 17' century that burning of goods and people kept a general trademark of "christianity". And till deep in the 18' century "christianity" tried to keep the cork on the scientific bottle. Fortunately they failed.

There is loads of support. Hundreds. I just took Wiki as that turned up as first link.
Anyway : still better than your source : a book, poorly copied and translated, written by paysants, selected a couple of hundred years later by involved believers themselves (what validity provides that ?), and without any evidence that there ever was any inspiration.

:D :rolleyes: :p :) ;) :D

sassyT,
Well done.
Do you have more info on that sort of biblical knowledge or can you provide a source for more.
I'm very much interested.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

And all of this information was known by man before the bible was written. Read a book about what knowledge ancient man really had. You will find out that people who studied (the people who could write stories) knew many things that the common people couldn't even dream of. All this shows is that the people who wrote the bible had studied the natural world. If you knew how much the Greeks actually knew in their time you would be shocked. It's a real pity that much of this knowledge has been lost to the ages and we are just now finding this information out again.

---

Michealb, of course everyone know that the ancient Greeks and Egyptians had advanced cultures but do you have any OSE that proves your claim that they knew the earth was spherical? Are there any ancient writing of a spherical earth, innumerable stars, a suspended earth, water cycle, oceanic thermal vents, ocean and wind currents etc..
If the man already knew all this scientific information, then why have recent scientist gotten creadit for discoveries that we supposedly should already have known for thousand of years?

You claim all this information was known to man before the bible? Can you tell me how 4000 years ago, without a telescope, man knew there were hundreds billion upon billions of stars? If this was common knowledge then why is it that eminent astrologist just in 150 BC were counting stars giving fixed numbers in the thousands? Do you have any OSE that man 4000years ago had this knowledge?
Can you tell me how 4000 years ago man knew the earth was spherical? Do you have any ancient writing from this period that proves man believed the earth to be spherical?
Can you tell me how 4000years ago man knew before deep sea technology, that there are springs and hydrolic vents?
And if the Hydrologic Cycle was already known to man 4000 years ago then why do men like Pierre Perault (who "discovered' the water cycle and evaporation in the 1670's) get creadit?
And you say all this shows is that people in the bible had studied the natural world... do you have OSE to prove this? And if for arguments sake they did study the natural world, what eqipment and technology did they used to gain this scientific knowledge that we now know because of technological advances?

Please do not just make hot air claims. Please can you back your claims with objective supported evidence. Thank you :)

Quote:

---

do you have any OSE that proves your claim that they knew the earth was spherical?

---

Yes. Considoring Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference. It would be a pretty safe concultion that if he was calculating circumference he knew the earth was a round. Also if you do a little bit of history work you'll find the idea of the world being flat is actually fairly new as far as ideas go not really gaining ground until the 12th centuary when the Church started to push the idea.

Quote:

---

Can you tell me how 4000 years ago, without a telescope, man knew there were hundreds billion upon billions of stars?

---

He didn't the bible reference only said "the stars are beyond numbering" Which just means there are a lot of them and the author didn't bother to count. You are assigning the number not the author which if you can assign a number they are not beyond counting.

Quote:

---

Can you tell me how 4000years ago man knew before deep sea technology, that there are springs and hydrolic vents?

---

He didn't again you are assigning more knowledge to the author than what is written. He said "all the fountains of the great deep." Springs on land were a very important part of life back then, people knew that water welled up from underground it was easy to see. So it's not really a stretch for the author who knew that the source of water on land came from fountains it wouldn't really be a strech for them to be under the sea as well.

Quote:

---

And if the Hydrologic Cycle was already known to man 4000 years ago then why do men like Pierre Perault (who "discovered' the water cycle and evaporation in the 1670's) get creadit?

---

Because the knowledge had been lost. Did you miss that part about me saying that much of what ancient people knew has been lost to the ages. You can also get credit for discovering something if you find out how it happens, even if everyone already knows it happens.

Quote:

---

and if for arguments sake they did study the natural world, what eqipment and technology did they used to gain this scientific knowledge that we now know because of technological advances?

---

They used their eyes, ears, noses, and hands. I think you would be surprised just how much science can be done with the equipment we are born with.

sassyT,
I still waiting and hoping you will answer my question about more of such scientific information from the bible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

sassyT, I still waiting and hoping you will answer my question about more of such scientific information from the bible.

---

Dear Fred : sassyT just copied that from other websites. It is of course called plagiarism, when one does not clearly state that it is copied, or provide a link to the original text source.
May be that is the reason why she can not answer you , as that would reveal that she did not write that herself.

There are several other websites with texts that are near identical to SassyT's post. A simple Google search will reveal that (like the "let us reason ministries" website).

:rolleyes:

Credendovidis,
Then is she will not tell me from where she got that information perhaps you will so that I can study it.
Thanks,
Fred

Fred,

I'm not sure this is the one, and there's too much info to go through to be certain, but here's a link about God and science for you.

Evidence for God from Science

I hope it's the information you're looking for. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

.... perhaps you will so that I can study it.

---

Just Google headers of the topic starter, one of which will lead you to : --> the let us reason ministries <--

But there are a load of other similar websites. All creationist's stuff...

:rolleyes:

Altenweg and Creden,
Thanks much,
Fred

I hope it was what you where looking for Fred. :)

Don't you just love it! The Bible haters keep saying that it is just a collection of myths, lies, and superstition, and then when they are forced to acknowledge that many things it says are confirmed by recent discoveries, they say it is because of the observations of ancient man, preferably any ancient man other than Hebrews. What fun!! Kudos, Sassy.

Every work of fiction has some truth in it, no one has ever denied that. It makes it easier for people to relate to it. What you are missing is that in order for reasonable people to acknowledge that the knowledge came from a supernatural being you have to do one of two things either rule out all other sources or prove it came from supernatural sources.

Again find me one case in which that the only answer possible is supernatural. As often as most of you think the supernatural acts on this world it should be fairly easy to write up the science experiment and prove it. Until it is proven that magic exists I will continue to discount it when I deal with the natural world.

By the way I don't hate the bible, the bible is an object. It sort of unreasonable to hate an object don't you think.

Well, in a couple of threads, I have shown you history written before the fact, but that doesn't count in your thinking, so I guess we'll just have to continue to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

Don't ya just love it! The Bible haters keep saying that it is just a collection of myths, lies, and superstition ....

---

How strange!! I do not see any "bible haters" here.
Only people who say that there is no OSE for the bible to be God's word, nor OSE for God to exist.
All they say is that that all is based on BELIEF and on nothing else!!

Why do you always twist things out of their context, make up arguments that were never stated, and/or just post lies - just to sooth your frustrations??

:D :rolleyes: :p :) ;) :D

I agree Cred.

I don't believe that the bible is the word of God, it is an interesting book though, and I don't hate it, in fact I have 2 bibles, one that belonged to my mother and was handed down from generation to generation, and my Dads bible, also handed down.

It's an interesting book, and I'm not going to say that all the stories aren't true. My point is that the book was written by men, and therefore fallible, like men. If all of us witnessed the same event and then wrote about it, we'd all come up with very different stories. Some of us would perhaps add to the original tale in order to make the story more interesting. That's what I think the bible is.

I don't base my belief on the bible, that's all, but hate it, no. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Every work of fiction has some truth in it, no one has ever denied that. It makes it easier for people to relate to it. What you are missing is that in order for reasonable people to acknowledge that the knowledge came from a supernatural being you have to do one of two things either rule out all other sources or prove it came from supernatural sources.

Again find me one case in which that the only answer possible is supernatural. As often as most of you think the supernatural acts on this world it should be fairly easy to write up the science experiment and prove it. Until it is proven that magic exists I will continue to discount it when I deal with the natural world.

By the way I don't hate the bible, the bible is an object. It sort of unreasonable to hate an object don't you think.

---

History written in advance IS supernatural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

History written in advance IS supernatural.

---

Or psychic, or not fact, or just luck, a guess... supernatural isn't the only possibility.

Pity these "predictions" were made with such wishy-washy language that the bible couldn't inspire the science. Science had to find it independently, and then you look back in your book to find something that sounds like it predicted it. Thanks for the help God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

History written in advance IS supernatural.

---

We have gone over this. I can write that I'm going to go to jail. Then go rob a bank and go to jail for robbing the bank. Technically I foretold the future. Does that make me supernatural? No. The other way I can foretell the future is by misdating my work
"On September 11th 2001 three planes will crash.By MichealB July 3rd 2000" If I were to write that down and pass the information around a primitive culture that had no way of knowing exactly when something was written down it would seem that I foretold the future. Does that make me supernatural? No. The third way of telling the future is leave out details. "Tomorrow something bad will happen." We all know that tomorrow something bad will happen to someone or if nothing bad enough to warrant a warning from the past happens we can use future events like it was the day that two terrorist met that planned a future bombing and had they not met the bombing wouldn't have occurred. Does that make me supernatural? No.
(Sorry for all of the 9/11 references but my office over looks the side of the Pentagon that got hit and they are currently setting up for the events tomorrow. So it's sort of on my mind.)

The claim of supernatural must be proven beyond the natural because the natural is know to exist where as the supernatural is not.
Takes less evidence to say a baby deer was in my backyard and busted a hole in my fence. (happened to me last week, really)
Than to say a unicorn was in my backyard and busted a hole in my fence. Although it would might be easier for unicorn to bust a hole in fence versus a baby deer it still doesn't make it a more likely story.

I only discount the supernatural because there is no evidence for it.