How does science disprove the Bible?

I stand corrected, pardon my occasionally impulsive and a wee bit alcohol infused nature.

IamJoseph YELLING DOES NOT MAKE AN ARGUMENT VALID JOE! Talk is cheap. Please,explain how it is gibberish when better examined.Also, could you detail how science is dependent upon miracles Joseph? So exactly how does God come about then Joe? Is he something? Was he once nothing? God existing forever is no less a problem that matter always existing as you so erroneously put it. Matter as we know it has not always existed. Really? Explain how matter changes fundamentally when forces act upon it would you? Man you are so far off the mark as to be coming up behind yourself now. Please tell us where in science it says that energy is matter in an altered state. So what is the cause of God Joe? And the offspring of each seed is a little different than the one that preceeded it, changing through the millenia and over eons from simple seed to more complex. I really do not know what is meant by singularity here so I am stumped on how to respond. Perhaps you would be good enough to clarify hmmm? Since light is the result of energy levels shifting in the orbits of electrons of atoms then this is pretty much dead in the water my lad. Should not be too hard to give an example then eh? Please Do show the math will you? LArgely authenticated AND vindicated you say. Again please show us will you? How do you conclude that asking for and questioning assumptions and conclusions is ridicule Joe? It is called using your head rather than swallowing whole someone else's ideas of the world. I have already asked for clarification here so we will skip reiteration for now.So please explain it already will you? Science math and logic are not sacred Joe they are just useful in explaining things.

---

"Good displays of data help to reveal knowledge relevant to understanding mechanism, process and dynamics, cause and effect." We see the unthinkable and think the unseeable. "Visual representations of evidence should be governed by principles of reasoning about quantitative evidence. Clear and precise seeing becomes as one with clear and precise thinking."
Edward R. Tufte

Yes, but it doesn't disprove zebras though, does it?

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

EvC Forum tries to encourage members to build arguments upon evidence and rational thinking, and debate here can often serve as a tool to hone one's skills. But there's an approach to discussion that neutralizes all rational debate: the Black Knight strategy.Those who use this strategy almost always do so unwittingly. The specific arguments are as varied as the people, but in general they make assertions without support or rational justification or even consistency. Such deficiencies are always immediately pointed out, but the Black Knight debater remains blissfully unaware, indeed appears to have no inkling that positions and assertions need to be supported, particularly after they've been rebutted. Like the Black Knight of Monty Python fame who denies he's been hurt while losing one limb after another, the Black Knight debater continues on regardless of diminishing circumstances. Already rebutted assertions and declarations are reintroduced time and again as if they hadn't already been swatted aside. In fact, so great is their unawareness of the requirements of rational discussion, Black Knight debaters often declare how well they're doing throughout the course of their debacle.I've been moderating this debate board for a while now, and I confess I've found no reliable approach to moderating Black Knight debaters. They are as uncomprehending of the requests from moderators as they are of the arguments from debaters. Suspension of Black Knight debaters, who usually seem to so obviously want to discuss, seems counterproductive for a discussion board.So what I've elected to do for the present, at least until a better approach is developed, is to advise participants that board moderation is aware of the presence of a Black Knight debater, and that they should continue to follow the Forum Guidelines by staying focused on the topic, and by either ignoring the Black Knight debater, or by merely noting the lack of evidence or rationality for his positions. Just don't expect rebuttals to be meaningfully addressed or even acknowledged, else you'll get frustrated and run afoul of the Forum Guidelines yourself.AbE: Please direct replies to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0 thread.Edited by Admin, : Add comment about where to reply.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

admin

​

Those who use this strategy almost always do so unwittingly. The specific arguments are as varied as the people, but in general they make assertions without support or rational justification or even consistency. Such deficiencies are always immediately pointed out, but the Black Knight debater remains blissfully unaware, indeed appears to have no inkling that positions and assertions need to be supported, particularly after they've been rebutted.

---

How so? Be nice and point out how I made assertions without support or rational justification? Whatever has been pointed out (debated), was responded to, I believe, rationally. The thread subject is how science can disprove the bible. That assumes there is an arguement - but I get the feeling you do not think there is any arguement here, and my responses are numb to what I'm responding to or irrational: I've no idea what you are referring to. How so - please give some specific examples? Thanks.

DoddyOf course it does not. It merely points out that one should focus on the ordinary first to eliminate the mundane answers first since they are the most likely source. We check out the known and mundane first as an answer before we check out the exotic unknown.

Can you provide me with experimental evidence which supports your claim. I would like to see something similar to the two articles which I provided to support my statements. If you do not except my conclusion regarding Mr. Hawking's statement, then please provide an alternative conclusion. How do you know that this is what "the Bible clearly means to imply." It seems that you are completely ignoring what the Bible says in order to force the text to fit your position.

I am not trying to argue anything. I am simply stating some things that pop in my head.I will now make an argument.We are talking about a MIRACLE if I remember correctly.God who spoke the universe into existence in Genesis 1:1 would not be limited in POWER.You want to limit the amount of power God has.If God could create the universe and everything in it He could stop it on a dime and give you nine cents change and nothing be out of place for having stopped. He could keep it standing still for 1,000 years of our time if He so desired.If He so desired He could make it run backwards. You have a very small view of who God is. The earth is God's footstool, that is how big our earth is to God, He could kick it around like a football.Some here are always talking about the genocide of God.Sodom and Gomorra destroyed by fire and brimstone.All those who are not written in the Lambs Book of Life, cast into the lake of fire.Somebody somewhere has gotten the mistaken idea that God is some boy scout that is there to help everyone across the street.God is a just God, He made the rules, and if you break the rules you pay the price.There is a saying "If you can't do the time don't do the crime".God made an escape for everyone who would believe and trust in the sacrifice of His only begotten Son on the Cross for the sins of the world. John 3:16-18God says: "To me belongeth vengance". Deut 32:35Science cannot prove where the universe came from nor can it prove where life came from. Therefore everything after that is based on a hypothesis that cannot be proven.And you guys are arguing that the Genesis account of creation is false.It is no more false than what you believe.The consequences of what you believe if wrong is the lake of fire.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I am perfectly aware that it's poetry, exaggerating to describe an event in heroic language like Homer did in the Iliad. Tell your literalist co-religionists that it's poetry, not me.Edited by Coragyps, : fix $^&$## tags

Oh? One single example, please.

quote:

---

3. For your points three and four - YES - and these have been answered sufficiently. Here is one book you can read which deals with these issues. "NOAH'S ARK: A Feasibility study" by John Woodmorappe ISBN 0-932766-41-2

---

Woodmorappe's book is laugh-out-loud ridiculous. I know, because I own it.His descriptions of the foodstuffs that could have been taken aboard the ark is particularly amusing. He includes things like "compressed hay" even though the technology to compress hay didn't exist for another 2000 years or so.Anyway, if you would like to discuss Woodmoreappe's book, and feeding the animals on the Ark in more detail, there are existing threads here and hereEdited by nator, : No reason given.

Hello, Issabee, and welcome to EvC! I see that you know your way around the subject already - we value you contributions here.Woodmoorappe "claims that amphibians were not taken on the ark," eh? Is he aware that seawater kills all modern amphibians just like Kryptonite? Does he have them all sitting in fresh-water pools on his "floating mats of vegetation" for a year? That's pretty rich....

quote:

---

YELLING DOES NOT MAKE AN ARGUMENT VALID JOE!

---

That was a 'heading', usually bolder or underlined.

quote:

---

Talk is cheap. Please,explain how it is gibberish when better examined.Also, could you detail how science is dependent upon miracles Joseph?

---

Behind the equations, there is a random. This is the same as magic: the science leaves the scene. I explained my reasoning here, but you do not take it up.

quote:

---

So exactly how does God come about then Joe? Is he something? Was he once nothing? God existing forever is no less a problem that matter always existing as you so erroneously put it. Matter as we know it has not always existed.

---

Whatever the force is, Gd or some similar factor does not effect the premise. The point is, both science and creationism ultimately profess an original cause of magic - all science ceases here. I agree with this - but most here do not admit this factor. The definition of this magic, a word which denotes no explainable original cause at the bottom of everything, is common to both scenarios. One choses a Creator to represent this, the other settles for a random - 'it just happened': what's the difference here, that creationism is targeted as myth - what is random?

quote:

---

Really? Explain how matter changes fundamentally when forces act upon it would you?

---

MC2. Matter is interchangeable with energy - which is a fundamental change.

quote:

---

Man you are so far off the mark as to be coming up behind yourself now. Please tell us where in science it says that energy is matter in an altered state.

---

Your car runs on matter (fossil fuel) converted to energy.

quote:

---

So what is the cause of God Joe?

---

The applicable factors here are thus:Whatever is seen as the original cause of the universe, can be termed the CREATOR. Logic says, the Creator has to be transcendent of his creation: ie, the Creator must be able to perform creation. Transcendent must also include longevity - else you have a situation where every car maker does not survive the making of his car - that is not transcendent; this points to being ageless or not time effected. This is not unreasonable: light is ageless; the universe is billions of years old - many see it as always existing; so a transcendent creator can reasonably be described as ageless. The issue of where God comes from thus becomes mute - and we cannot have a Creator as less than infinite for the same reason of transcending the universe's age: there is hardly a coherent alternative to this. When one asks, what is the alternative? The options are that 'IT JUST HAPPENED; IT WAS ALWAYS THERE. That answer has both a stealth Creator factor, and an infinite factor. Here the only difference is a varied description of the Creator premise, and the differing results are Random or a purposeful, mindful Creator as described in Genesis. If there is any other differences - I'd like to hear it?

quote:

---

And the offspring of each seed is a little different than the one that preceeded it, changing through the millenia and over eons from simple seed to more complex.

---

I see that all changes and complexity can be allocated to the seed. But I don't see those changes from A to Z life forms coming from amoeba millions of years ago. All the graduations allocated to cross-specie as per darwin appear only on academic levels - with qualifications which cannot be verified or identified as can the seed impacts. Here, it is not conclusive that Genesis is wrong; it may be that cross-specie is wrong. There is no reason to make bold declarations of one being right and the other absolutely wrong or myth: there is no conclusive answer here to justify such allegations.

quote:

---

I really do not know what is meant by singularity here so I am stumped on how to respond. Perhaps you would be good enough to clarify hmmm?

---

Yes, I understand your confusion here, it is justified. The absence of a singularity has resulted in allocating it a different thing from what it was originally meant to be: that everything can be reduced to one common, base matter particle which cannot be reduced or divided any further. This was saught to find a unified force; once quarks were tauted as the smalles, indivisable - but proved very wrong. Because no singularity was found, there is now a different scientific description of it. However, I am referring to the fact there is no single common entity from which all things in the universe evolved from - thus the duality factor applies, and the reason I agree with Genesis' duality factor. IOW, nothing happens with just one particle: it requires another impacting force to make the static into dynamic.The above has a big impact on the BBT, which has now extended itself to parallel and multi universes: this is already an inclining towards Genesis' duality premise - because of the lack of a single entity which can account for the BBT. IOW, the universe could not have begun with one singular entity - it would require at least a set of factors (minimum two/a duality) to make anything happen. This can be a particle and an impacting force, or any other combination of two impacting and interacting factors. Further, I see it as logical that an intergrated system signifies a transcendent force hovering, thereby negating the random premise.

quote:

---

Since light is the result of energy levels shifting in the orbits of electrons of atoms then this is pretty much dead in the water my lad.

---

This is the usual negating reason given here. It ignores what makes levels shift and critical orbits happen - from its original static form. I have not a correct answer to this, but there is no question that light displays transcendent factors of the energy behind it: light's velosity appears greater than the energy levels said to cause it - this contradicts the premise that a created entity cannot be transcend its creator cause. The energy may be cause excitation to the protons, which is not light per se, only the component which makes light visible. It is possible that the essence of light can be precedent and independent of energy: because the energy required to cause and sustain the universe appears inadequate, even considering self-accumulating and self-generating energy (explained as a discrepensy factor).

quote:

---

Maths validity:
That the OT contains literally 100s of 1000s of numbers (dates, distances, dobs & dod's)

​

Should not be too hard to give an example then eh?

---

I did. Check again.

quote:

---

That The Ten Commandments are declared as occuring on a 'SATURDAY', and this corresponds with every other number and date in the OT and its 3000 year diarised calendar, down to the 'DAY' - is a showcase of unequalled math. We could not perform this feat today for a 3000 year period.

​

Please Do show the math will you?

---

There is great math in the example sited above.

quote:

---

Historical Validity.
We are disputing the OT historicity's accuracy with minutae examples, while disregarding that it is 99% correct - and that the error of some instances can be esewhere from the OT. The fact is, we have historical data here which is largely authentic and vindicated - and that most of this historical info is not available elsewhere - not for 3000 years of other, independent recordings, untill archeology arrived!

​

LArgely authenticated AND vindicated you say. Again please show us will you?

---

Eg: King David - a 3000 year historical figure: Page Not Found - U C G S P

Are you simple?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The fact is that it never happened.Period.All of Joshua is but folk tales. There was no Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua.You need to understand that before you can decide what it means.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion