The Bible only twice mentions science, once in a good sense and once in a bad sense--where?
407556
Well, I think Martin nailed it.  Good going!\n\nJust in case some might think these are the ONLY places Science is mentioned in the Bible though, note the following couple of verses which are a source of scientific info:\n\n* Isaiah 40:22 - "There is One who is dwelling above the sphere of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell." --- This shows that the truth about the earth being round was known long before Columbus.\n\n* Ecclesiastes 1:7 - "The winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth." --- This tells about the water cycle.\n\nOf course, these are just a sample;  there are many, many more.
659925
The discoveries of science should be analyzed in light of the Bible.  Science that doesn't fit, (very little doesn't) should be put to one side and studied until it can be properly studied.  Scientists that are not Christians can not truly understand the mysteries of God.  Scientists like the Creation Science Institute, can evaluate things better as being Christians they have the help of the Holy Spirit.  A non Christian will disagree completely with me.  \nSO The Bible proves Science/ we analyze science by the truth of the Bible.\nI am not going to get into it in depth, but there are so many examples of what we thought was true, and now know is not.  Evolution is one of those theorys.
275460
The bible is a book of stories passed down thro generations. Don't take it seriously
424303
NO another example of how foolish christians think that science is bad. \nScience created nothing? where have you been?\nThis kind of thinking makes me very happy to have turned away from religion. I am so glad that I have donated money and became a member with the Freedom FROM Religion Foundation.
370725
Its a bit of both. How they perceive the bible that differs.
648313
I don't think enough religious people are suspicious of "science".  Modern science is constantly contradicting itself.\n\nAnd, I don't think the Bible contradicts itself.  Man's interpretations may contradict themselves; thus, the interpretations may be wrong.  Also, the Books of the Bible were written at different times, the subjects may have changed.  That is, if I wrote a Book three hundred years ago and said "there are no aircrafts in the sky" and someone else wrote a Book today, saying "there are aircrafts everywhere in the sky", it does not mean that the collective works (the two Books, plus) contradict themselves.  And, there is so much not understood between the alleged contradictions such that one could not say for certain that they contradict.  That is, one Book (written 700 years ago) might say  "There are no aircrafts in the sky"; then Books (written 300 years ago) might say "There are aircrafts on the sky everywhere".  The part in between the two alleged contradictions and not understood or misinterpreted [coded by those big names or terms we don't understand] (actually) means "The following is hogwash; I had to say it for my own and mankind's protection".  Thus, in actuality, the Books do not contradict themselves (it's just misunderstood).\n\nPossible.\n\nPeace.
928885
The Bible doesn't mention a lot of stuff that is real, because it spends a lot of time mentioning things that are not.
723690
There are all kinds of contradictions in the bible.
730892
I'm sure you'll be told you're reading the wrong version of the bible. everytime someone finds something bad in one of them, there's either a contradictory statement for rebuttal or it's just the wrong version.
917500
The Bible is not a science Book. What mistakes in it have scientists proved? Nothing. When the Bible touches on science it is very accurate. For example:\n\nHow is the earth is held in space? In ancient times when the Bible was being written, there was much speculation about how the earth was held in space. Some believed that the earth was supported by four elephants standing on a big sea turtle. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher and scientist of the fourth century B.C.E., taught that the earth could never hang in empty space. Instead, he taught that the heavenly bodies were fixed to the surface of solid, transparent spheres, with each sphere nested within another sphere. Supposedly the earth was on the innermost sphere, and the outermost sphere held the stars.\n\nYet, rather than reflect the fanciful, unscientific views existing at the time of its writing, the Bible simply stated (in about the year 1473 B.C.E.): "[God is] hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) In the original Hebrew, the word for "nothing" used here means "not any thing," and this is the only time it occurs in the Bible. The picture it presents of an earth surrounded by empty space is recognized by scholars as a remarkable vision for its time. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says: "Job 26:7 strikingly pictures the then-known world as suspended in space, thereby anticipating future scientific discovery."\n\nThe Bible's accurate statement predated Aristotle by over 1,100 years. Yet, Aristotle's views continued to be taught as fact for some 2,000 years after his death! Finally, in 1687 C.E., Sir Isaac Newton published his findings that the earth was held in space in relation to other heavenly objects by mutual attraction, that is, gravity. But that was close to 3,200 years after the Bible had stated with elegant simplicity that the earth is hanging "upon nothing."\n\nThe more people try to prove the Bible wrong, the more foolish they look.
718994
I just don't see that great a need to appease science.\n\nScience is supposed to be what we know.  Not what creative thing we can come up with.  Show me something that crossed the line of species and was an IMPROVEMENT, and could reproduce after it's kind (not man cross-breeding species to come up with some infertile something), and we'll talk.\n\nScience doesn't know it can happen because in all of recorded history we've not seen it happen.\n\nI'm not going to doubt God because some man thinks he knows better.  Or even because it's just not the intellectual thing to do.  Or because people make fun of what I believe.\n\nI'm not afraid of science.  I think all honest science (things we actually know) do not conflict with the Bible.  Most theories do.  But they're just theories.  \n\nIf I'm putting my faith in something or Someone, it's going to be God.
731907
Empirical science does not prove the Bible wrong but certain beliefs that some scientists hold do go against the Bible. The bible is historically accurate more than any other written work in existance. It was also written with geographical points of reference. Archeology has verified so many cities, locations of all kinds, buildings, peoples, and the occurance of major events, existance of rulers and more up to the 2nd chapter of the first book of the Bible, Genesis, where the first landmarks are mentioned. There is no conflict with observable science and the content of scripture. Prophecy has been shown to be verified from past accounts in the Bible making it a unique book. The human history in geneology is found in the bible up to the birth of Jesus. The provable accounts of where the main nations came from are recorded in the book of Genesis chapter 10. \n\nAnyone with a unbiased opinion would be able to see that the Bible is very unique to the Point of being divinely written when a general study of it is done. The present world events and the ones still come will further enhance the divine mark of the Bible when the fullfilment of more prophecy is seen as in the world ruler arising and the Jewish Temple rebuilt and more.\n\nUsually it is the issue of Darwinian evolution that some people try to hold against the Bible when it comes to science but when it comes down to it observable science (not the philoshophy of Darwinism) is in harmony with the Bible where it states that creatures multiply according to their own kind as stated in the first chapter of Genesis. \n\nHistory also proves that people have been changed by the influence of the Bible as well as whole nations being impacted as the history of the U.S.A. shows.
193053
You're not a bad person.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, though that doesn't necessarily mean there is no right or wrong.  As far as the question goes, science cannot prove religion wrong a majority of the time, because science can prove something observable, recordable and repeatable, often things which religion is not.  Also, science is meant to prove the natural, not the supernatural where religion has been known to find it's base.  However, if there are parts of a religion that state something in science as always true, and it has been proven by science that it is NOT the case, then very likely the view is wrong, or at least at that one point.  However, science does often correspond to things in certain religions and is known to be true at such points.  A religion can prove that it is correct, though, depending on it's logic, recognition of human fallibility, and correspondence with things that have been observed to be true.  For example, the Bible, when it's original copies were first discovered, had a list of the ten kings of either Persia or Babylon (i'm not exactly sure which) including their names and when and where they reigned.  This list was already previously known from another manuscript and everything checked out exactly.  For it's worth, they also found three other ancient texts containing the same list, none of which were very legible.  One had only two names clear and half the dates were wrong, another had one name readable and a majority of the dates were incorrect as well as the locations, and in the third all the dates and locations were inaccurate and the only way to know any of the names was to know what the list was about.  Things like that can add to or take away from the credibility of a religion.  So before throwing out a religion entirely, take the 5 best books written for that religion, look at their best arguments, see if they make sense and if you can prove them wrong logically, and then make your decision based on that.
482546
It seems to be in remission.  Science and Christianity for example used to be polar opposites, and those who followed science were put to death in some cases.  Then science and christianity became like realitives that didn't speak to each other.  A little bad mouthin around the neighbors, but no big deal.  The science started to win, where christianity had to make excuses for Genesis (oh, what's a day in the life of God?) and such.  Now it seems that christianity is trying to hold its own again and ignore science.
315921
You can say the same thing about the bible.  Other than faith there is nothing to say it is true just because some of the stuff mentioned existed in that time doesn't make the whole book true.
30953
I agree with you and have said the same thing myself many times.  From my point of view the bible is much like Grimms fairy tales.  To be used as and example of right and wrong.
620911
Being an historian I will reserve judgement until I see the evidence personally.  I've NEVER read from a credible source that scientists have stated that the Bible to be one of the most accurate books ever written.\n\n\nShow ME the source and I will decide for myself.