Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does science disprove the Bible?
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 196 of 310 (409322)
07-08-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by ICANT
07-08-2007 5:06 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
ICANT writes:
So then if you can prove the details of the account in Genesis 2:4-4:26 are not true
Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
Genesis 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman later as an after thought.
Genesis 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
ICANT writes:
I read previous verses and I could not find where Judah was supposed to conquer the valley. In fact I could not find where he was supposed to be there at all.
Are you responding with a riddle or duplicity?
Judges 1:19 writes:
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
The passage means something totally contrary to the plain meaning I am guessing we are about to learn. Break out the mental twister board and spin the dial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 5:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 8:58 PM iceage has replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 197 of 310 (409324)
07-08-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by ICANT
07-08-2007 5:06 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
ICANT writes:
I read previous verses and I could not find where Judah was supposed to conquer the valley. In fact I could not find where he was supposed to be there at all.
Also you side stepped the great issue. The OT paints God almost humanly with the ability to: be cheered by wine, grow angry, be a man of war, have a change of heart, be challenged by a unified human race, etc.
It is incongruent with a creator of the universe. This idea is off topic here and I would love to discuss it sometime in the future and maybe i will start a thread on this when I have time.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 5:06 PM ICANT has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 198 of 310 (409325)
07-08-2007 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by kbertsche
07-08-2007 5:06 PM


Re: Re-long day
I realize that there is little if any extra-biblical evidence for the conquest of Canaan (I'll try to look into this more later). But as I've said before, LACK of evidence for an event is NOT evidence that it did not occur. There may well be archaeological evidence that has not yet been unearthed.
I am not talking of just a lack of evidence, although that too can be very important. In many cases lack of evidence can most certainly be evidence that something did not occur. Frankly, there is NO extra-biblical evidence for a Conquest of Canaan and lots of evidence that it never happened period.
I realize that there are conflicts between archaeological data and the most conservative biblical date of about 1410BC. As I mentioned earlier, some of these conflicts may be misdating or misidentifying of sites in Palestine. The other date for the Conquest held by some Christians is about 1250BC, which I believe avoids most of the archaeological conflicts but presents some biblical conflicts.
More "Theology of any shit I can make up."
If you move it to about 1250BCE (and frankly you need to move it closer to 1000 BCE to make anything even possible) it simply proves that it didn't happen as described in the Bible.
Why not just teach the truth, teach kids that they are folk tales of the founding of a peoples.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by kbertsche, posted 07-08-2007 5:06 PM kbertsche has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 199 of 310 (409326)
07-08-2007 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by iceage
07-08-2007 1:01 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Genesis does not square with what science has revealed. Statement of fact. Even in general notional terms, Genesis does not match the order of appearance of life forms that scientific investigation and study has revealed. Genesis 1 is at odds with Genesis 2 because they are different myths.
Again, it is not the text itself which does not square with science, but only some interpretations of the text. There are MANY ways to interpret Gen 1-3. One which is held by inerrantists and which avoids conflict with science is the "Framework Interpretation". (I'm sure jar will say that they are "making stuff up".)
Genesis just like Joshua is what is called a myth - stories which often include religious, ethnic and political content that get handed down orally for generations and get embellished and often include insertions from myths of surrounding culture. The information is all there you just have to approach the subject with diligence and an undodging commitment to truth.
This is one possible view. And if one approaches the Bible with this presupposition, he will assume that it contains many errors (historical, geographical, scientific). He will interpret the Bible very simplisticly and will conclude that some of its data is in error.
But this is not the only possible view. If one approaches the text with the presupposition that it DOES square with reality (historical, geographical, and scientific), he will find that plausible theories exist which will accomodate all of the data (biblical as well as extra-biblical). To the critics, this will look like we are "making things up".
The topic of this thread is to present evidence where "science disproves the Bible". As long as a plausible theory can be advanced which accomodates both the biblical and scientific data, the Bible has not been disproven by science. Granted, some of these theories may be unlikely, but as long as they exist the Bible has not been disproven.
(Aside: the flat-earther would likewise probably say that modern physics is "making stuff up". His view is much simpler than modern physics, because he ignores the data which doesn't fit. Likewise here. If we ascribe error to biblical data, we can come up with nice, simple theories. If we try to incorporate all of the biblical data as true, the theories become more complex and sophisticated, and appear to the critics to be "made up".)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 1:01 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by ringo, posted 07-08-2007 6:25 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 203 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 7:09 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 204 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2007 7:51 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 206 by ReverendDG, posted 07-08-2007 8:42 PM kbertsche has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 200 of 310 (409329)
07-08-2007 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by iceage
07-08-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Genocidal Poetry.
Let me see if I have this correct...
You have translated
"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."
to mean
"The day was dark and stormy and because of the darkness (not too dark to fight mind you) some thought that the sun hasted down which is silly of course since the sun does not hasten down as everyone knows"
Close, but too much editorial annotation. I would translate it to mean:
"So the sun stopped shining in the midst of heaven, but did not set until the end of the day."
This is only one possible interpretation. There are other possibilities as well. The text implies that the hailstorm was only in the valley (it only killed the bad guys, not the good guys who were in the process of descending to the valley from Beth-Horon). This may imply that the bad weather, thunderstorms, dark clouds, etc were only in the valley. Maybe this could fit with the sun shining over the clear eastern plain and the moon over the stormy western valley?
The point is that there are a number of possible theories for what happened which do not require stopping the earth's rotation. This biblical text is not disproven by science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 1:47 PM iceage has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 310 (409330)
07-08-2007 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by ICANT
07-08-2007 4:28 PM


An explanation of the attempted point.
It might seem rude to just dismiss your post as not germane to my point, without attempting to clarify what my point was.
The discussion was about, I thought, the miracle of the movement of the shadow on Hezekiah's sundial could be accepted in the absence of extra-Biblical evidence for that fact. The rest of the gibberish in my post were attempts at analogies to explain my point. I apologize that they were evidently confusing enought to obscure the point.
What I meant to say is that here we have an account of the backwards movement of the shadow of a sundial, an account that is not verified by any other source. What can be the explanation of this movement? One explanation is that it was a miraculous event, and that the reason other people didn't notice it was that either it was simply not noticed, or that it was some sort of effect that was confined to a small location.
Another possible explanation is that it never happened. We already know that even modern histories can incorporate accounts of events that didn't actually happen or the omission of important events that did happen, so this explanation poses no real conceptual difficulties.
So the question is why, seeing how there is a perfectly mundane explanation that is consistent with the evidence (or, in this case, the lack of evidence) and is consistent with the way we know the universe works and the way people behave (including inventing fictitious history, sometimes inadvertantly), why so many people must assume that the best explanation in this case is a miraculous event for which God is responsible; in fact, I am wondering why the miracle explanation is even a serious contender as a possibility.

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?
A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 4:28 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 9:56 PM Chiroptera has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 202 of 310 (409331)
07-08-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by kbertsche
07-08-2007 5:49 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
kbertsche writes:
If one approaches the text with the presupposition that it DOES square with reality....
That's a profoundly dishonest approach.
You wouldn't approach The Lord of the Rings or Animal Farm or Gulliver's Travels with "the presupposition that it DOES square with reality", would you?
The honest approach is to determine whether it DOES square with reality first, not to make up any wacky fairy tale you can think of to "explain" the difficulties.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by kbertsche, posted 07-08-2007 5:49 PM kbertsche has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 203 of 310 (409333)
07-08-2007 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by kbertsche
07-08-2007 5:49 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
kbertsche writes:
Again, it is not the text itself which does not square with science, but only some interpretations of the text.
But when your creative interpretations go way beyond the text you are corrupting the material.
kbertsche writes:
If one approaches the text with the presupposition that it DOES square with reality (historical, geographical, and scientific), he will find that plausible theories exist which will accomodate all of the data (biblical as well as extra-biblical).
This is crux. I am somewhat taken back that you would actually admit to it. If you already want to believe something badly enough then with enough messaging the data, creative interpretations and unwarranted extrapolations a you can make reality whatever you want. This is madness. This is a very good way to fool yourself and mislead others.
If you were born in a Muslim culture the probability is that you would have done the same presupposition with Koran and you would be now explaining to us how the Koran squares with science because this and that. I have read Muslim apologetics and they make the same unfounded claims.
kbertsche writes:
To the critics, this will look like we are "making things up".
Critics? To the objective and the rational this looks like "making things up".
kbertsche writes:
As long as a plausible theory can be advanced which accomodates both the biblical and scientific data, the Bible has not been disproven by science. Granted, some of these theories may be unlikely, but as long as they exist the Bible has not been disproven.
Plausible is not a very precise term, especially when you allow for supernatural events. If you accept the supernatural what isn't plausible? From this perspective talking donkeys, the stopping of the sun, towers to heaven, world wide floods are all; unlikely, inconsistent, incongruent, disharmonious, but plausible.
And what good is manipulating yourself to believe unlikely theories not based on any objective reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by kbertsche, posted 07-08-2007 5:49 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 1:06 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 249 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 5:24 PM iceage has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 204 of 310 (409338)
07-08-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by kbertsche
07-08-2007 5:49 PM


Prediction
But this is not the only possible view. If one approaches the text with the presupposition that it DOES square with reality (historical, geographical, and scientific), he will find that plausible theories exist which will accomodate all of the data (biblical as well as extra-biblical). To the critics, this will look like we are "making things up".
Making an interpretation fit the known facts (whether they be historical or scientific) is a relatively easy and wholly subjective exercise.
However making new facts of nature fit your interpretation is a much harder and better test of any theory.
Hence the reliance of science on prediction as the best means of evaluating theories.
It should be noted that science has made many verified predictions regarding the nature life the universe and everything. It is on these predictions that the foundtions of our current knowledge now lie.
Nobody has ever predicted anything, never mind anything specific and measuarable, using the bible that was not a subjective interpretation post the event in question.
Science has proven the bible wrong countless times but with the hindsight and knowledge of science and history it will always be possible to re-interpret biblical poetry such that it fits the known facts. This no more validates the bible than it does astrological mumbo jumbo published in the daily papers or the ramblings of Nostradamus.
Interpreting biblical poetry to fit scientific facts is effectively a recognition that the scientific method is the best means of investigating nature and that the bible and everything else rates as a very poor substitute for physical, objective and corroborated evidence that has predictiv reasoning at it's heart.
Stay happy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by kbertsche, posted 07-08-2007 5:49 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 9:24 PM Straggler has replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 205 of 310 (409345)
07-08-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by sidelined
07-08-2007 8:22 AM


sidelined writes:
Of 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.
Which means that, as I said, science then doesn't disprove the Bible, it just offers more parsimonious explanations for some things (that the Bible wasn't true but is a myth).
However, for a Bible-believer, this is no big deal because they know it was a miracle anyway, and thus outside of the laws of science and parsimony.

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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by sidelined, posted 07-08-2007 8:22 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by anastasia, posted 07-08-2007 9:46 PM Doddy has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 206 of 310 (409347)
07-08-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by kbertsche
07-08-2007 5:49 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
But this is not the only possible view. If one approaches the text with the presupposition that it DOES square with reality (historical, geographical, and scientific), he will find that plausible theories exist which will accomodate all of the data (biblical as well as extra-biblical). To the critics, this will look like we are "making things up".
my problem with this idea is it denies a fundamental fact, the people who wrote the text believed the text was correct, trying to twist what the text says only shows that the text needs to be twisted to work and if it needs to be twisted to work, it fails to be true
the fact is they thought the earth was a giant snow globe like other cultures did, they had no insight into how the world work or how it was created anymore than anyone else, they thought god did it the way the bible says, this doesn't make the belief anything more, just wrong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by kbertsche, posted 07-08-2007 5:49 PM kbertsche has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 207 of 310 (409348)
07-08-2007 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by iceage
07-08-2007 5:29 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
So what is the problem with that?
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
So what is the problem with that?
Genesis 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman later as an after thought.
So what is the problem with that?
I think if you read the scripture it says she was made as a help meet for the man.
Genesis 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
So what is the problem with that? He did die that same day.
Break out the mental twister board and spin the dial.
God has been with me for 58 years, but there have been many times I messed up because I was doing something God wasn't pleased with.
I am having a hard time finding any proof that Genesis account 2:4-4:26 is false. I read a lot of statements which are exactly what the account says. But I see no proof they are false.
Are you saying they are false becaue you say they are false?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 5:29 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Coragyps, posted 07-08-2007 9:03 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 211 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 9:39 PM ICANT has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 208 of 310 (409349)
07-08-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ICANT
07-08-2007 8:58 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
So what is the problem with that?
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
So what is the problem with that?
They are contrary to what we observe!!!!!! That's what's wrong with them!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 8:58 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 9:27 PM Coragyps has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 209 of 310 (409350)
07-08-2007 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Straggler
07-08-2007 7:51 PM


Re: Prediction
Nobody has ever predicted anything, never mind anything specific and measuarable, using the bible that was not a subjective interpretation post the event in question.
Straggler, I predict according to the Bible that if you die without accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you will bow at His feet one day and confess that He is Lord.
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
If that does not happen, you win.
That is the ultimate test as to the Bible being false or true.
Enjoy

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2007 7:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 9:46 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2007 10:21 AM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 210 of 310 (409351)
07-08-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Coragyps
07-08-2007 9:03 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
They are contrary to what we observe!!!!!! That's what's wrong with them!
So then you have a date for Genesis 1:1.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Coragyps, posted 07-08-2007 9:03 PM Coragyps has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024