How does science disprove the Bible?

I've never heard about a singularity appearing from nothing, sounds equally impossible to me though. The Big Bang model on the other hand says nothing of the sort. We have writings about a lot of things occurring, not all of them did. The first warning sign is that nobody witnessed the creation so no documentary evidence exists. Only alleged secondary sources exist (the guy that did it told me, and now I'm telling you...). We are here, so something must have happened. What 'it' is is another issue entirely. I can assure you that it probably wasn't worked out by people 3500 years ago who managed to get it written down. If I'm going to trust a written source of the creation, logic would lead us to believe the oldest existing one as being the most contemporary and thus most accurate. Genesis is not the oldest creation story. It is not a fact, its complete gobbledegook. The life of the flesh is the blood? What does that mean? Surely the 'life' of the flesh is the metabolic processes? Sure, the blood assists by transporting needed chemicals and gasses around but the 'life of the flesh'? This is far from a scientific discovery. This sounds like a bunch of intelligent but tragically ignorant people who observed that people could die by bleeding to death and thus concluded that blood keeps you alive. Those same people then described this phenomenon in a poetic sense and tied it into sacrifice and food preparation.Hardly a divine revelation, its just rudimentary observational science. They certainly weren't the first people to observe the connection between staying alive and keeping the blood on the inside. The Egyptians even had anatomical studies and surgical instructions written down. Should we worship Ra now, because it was his high priest, Imhotep that did this?The rest of the words in the verse are even more nonsense and I don't think science has ever discovered that blood makes atonement for the soul.

Since you are so certain, could you dig up the salinity tolerances of a representative sample of coral species? Cheers. Google advises that Antipathes fiordensis is sensitive to low salinity and that Montipora verrucosa becomes extremely sensitive to temperature variations at lower salinity levels. If you own the book, keep reading to the end of the page. We sometimes make assumptions, then see if the consequences of those assumptions are reflected in the real world, if they are it is considered evidence that the assumptions are accurate. At the bottom of the page it talks about how the predictions from these assumptions end up being correct!Hawking then goes onto describe several other solutions that could come from his assumptions.Nevertheless - you stated: [Hawking] refused to believe that the earth was at the center of the universe because [Hawking] was too modest to think of [Hawking's] planet as being something special. Actually what is going on is that Alexander Friedmann makes the assumption and that 'we' accept it on grounds of modesty. And as I said, it was later that evidence turned up (in the guise of successful predictions) thanks to Hubble.

Right, not where did the singularity come from? Nothing. But nothing happened before the big bang as in - there wasn't anything happening before the big bang - there was no where or when for it to happen!. So far, that aligns with what I said, not what you said. Of course one can find texts where the singularity issue is dealt with in a less than stellar manner and instead of the discussion turning to the point where relativity breaks down and gives nonsense answers - some people will go on to state that the nonsense answers as being a valid description.Of course, if you read a book on cosmology you are bound to be introduced to several quantum theories that deal with the fuzzy unknown patch around 10^-43 seconds. However, I still see nothing about singularities appearing from nothing. I am perfectly happy to discuss cosmology in more depth with you if you'd like, and as strange as it all is - it doesn't describe impossibilities such as things appearing from nothing. Most talk about a four dimensional universe that simply exists, others discuss brane worlds and superstrings. The question you just asked was gobbledegook it appears to be a question mangled with a sentence. What I originally said stands, the phrase you pulled out of the Bible is meaningless as a scientific statement. It seems a poetic way of stating the 'bleeding' obvious with a bunch of theology tacked on the end.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don't see that - I see stuff about animal sacrifices (see verses 3-9) and dietary restrictions (10-16). Nothing about a man bleeding for the sins of humanity. No worries. Then let it be known that the genesis story is far more incredible (as in 'not credible') or absurd than the physics of cosmology which seem occasionally counter-intuitive, but actually extraordinarily beautiful, symmetrical and simple.Feel free to pop on over to the cosmology forum for a read around, there are some interesting thoughts there.