How does science disprove the Bible?

I wrote:
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). My statement was obviously misleading, as you and Ringo have noted. This statement did not logically start as a presupposition, but was a conclusion of previous investigations and only then became a presupposition or basis for future biblical studies. And there is always a possibility that the evidence will show such presuppositions to be incorrect in the future.So I probably should have said we approach the text with the thought that it MAY be possible to square with other extra-biblical data, then we see if we can find plausible theories which encompass all of the data.I was trying to make an analogy with science in this statement, and it didn't come across correctly. In science we try to account for all the data when formulating our theories. We do not allow ourselves to throw out or ignore data which doesn't fit; this would be irresponsible. In theology, the primary "data" is the biblical text. But history, geography, and science are also important as secondary data. A good, responsible biblical interpretation will account for all of this data. (It is possible in either field that some of the data is bogus, and this needs to be checked. But once we are comfortable that the data is correct, we need to account for it honestly instead of ignoring it or labeling it as bogus for convenience.)Edited by kbertsche, : added clarificationEdited by kbertsche, : more clarification

This is just too weird. You have no evidence to support this claim other than the Bible and an inspired unique reading Genesis.Consider this ICANT: Over several millennia, *no* revelation or discovery of the nature of the universe or reality has *ever* come from an inspired or literal reading of the bible. It is always after the revelation that the apologist get busy and find ways to make things work out and find "amazing" correlations.The Bible's predictive record has been zero with respect to scientific knowledge. While science has gone on and discovered solar systems, galaxies, chemistry, relativity, DNA, gravity, etc. the bible has revealed nothing to even to the most *inspired* readers.But now you want us to believe you have struck gold with a wild improbable theory with no absolutely no physical evidence!!!! No offense but can you see why I or others might be sceptical? Where others have failed you have scored.Back to the real world. As far as the idea of a long long day goes, there is evidence that it is bunk.There are coral diurnal rings dating back to dawn of life when the year had over 400 days. The same goes for tidal rhythmites, lunar rhythms are written into the rocks way back into time when no mammal or dinosaur walked the face of the earth. There are also ancient fossilized wood specimens with .... yearly rings that again date why back in time.Keep in mind marking these geological time zones of tens of millions of years there are well defined geological periods where some life forms never ever mingle with other lifeforms in the geological record. For example, Trilobites are never found at the same level as dinosaurs, birds or mammals.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Precedence of data isn't really good science, is it? Does the Biblical text - or any "plausible" theory based on it - trump all history, geography and science?

---

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

quote:

---

iceage

​

This is just too weird. You have no evidence to support this claim other than the Bible and an inspired unique reading Genesis.

---

Most debates of this nature become cyclical with nothing ever being resolved. The prime cause is selective reponsa, and before any issue is resolved either way, it is discarded and another issue is introduced: thus the cyclic result.What should happen, and what is the correct methodology of debate, is not to be selective but contextual to the points debated. Before jumping to another issue, participants of either pursuation should comment on a point discussed: you should express clearly a for or against of items debated on the board. EG: if you make no comment whether the Israelites were in canaan as was debated here - it means you are running away from the issue, or else a silence is you condone it. Am I wrong?

quote:

---

ringo

​

Does the Biblical text - or any "plausible" theory based on it - trump all history, geography and science?

---

Absolutely not. A biblical text must eventually become evidenced by science, history and math - more so than a non-bibllical text. This is because a biblical text is not talking about science and history, but is assuming a stance of 'truth' - while there is no way of determining truth other than those three avenues, plus the application of logic and reasoning. This means the aspect of 'belief' must be set aside in this instant.Equally, one cannot determine a whole picture only by a dot on the page. The same applies to scientific theories which are not backed by surrounding evidences and what is not seen in our midst, or where agreeable alternate premises also apply: science is not vindicated where its positations are limited to academic and lab illustrations.

quote:

---

iceage

​

Over several millennia, *no* revelation or discovery of the nature of the universe or reality has *ever* come from an inspired or literal reading of the bible. It is always after the revelation that the apologist get busy and find ways to make things work out and find "amazing" correlations.

---

Yes, its been a dark period as far as revelations go, and the few ancient ones are elusive and many come with second and third generation reportings which are again far removed from the actual spacetime being described. But maybe there is no requirement to reveal anything at this time? There is a command in the OT, very bold and almost arrogant, which says NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING. When we look around, what new insight did we get the past 3000 years not covered in that document? Which new entity gave the world a single new law not contained in the OT - can you name one? That we discovered the world is not flat - is not a contradiction of what was given or new: the OT does not say the world was flat. Give an example what new enlightenment you think should have been revealed - but was not? It is thus important to weight the scenario evenly - by considering the other side of your assumption. As of today, nothing is disproven - so a more sombre appraoch is correct.

No, of course not. (Good question, BTW.) By "primary" and "secondary" I do not imply "precedence". I meant that the main body of theological data comes from the Bible. Any good interpretation must account for ALL the data, both biblical and extra-biblical.

gravity, atomic and sub-atomic physics, chemistry, relativity, quantum theory, evolution, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, etc. the list is long.Just in the off case that you are to respond that these concepts are not in contradiction with the Bible, note that nether is the Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Avesta, or any other ancient scripture.Let me underscore the concept. No scientific discovery ever originated from the Bible. So why consider it to be a scientific document?Edited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

quote:

---

iceage

​

Let me underscore the concept. No scientific discovery ever originated from the Bible. So why consider it to be a scientific document?

---

I dunno what a scientific document is - perhaps a book on science. But one can say, that the OT can be scientifically rationalised. This is not contradicted by miracles - it does happen to also be a theology. The science rationalisation is thus on its historicity. Here, there is a clear basis for science, which is not negated if sectors of science disagrees: it is still a science based premise; eg: the chronological listing of species, that a seed caters to repro, that humans emerged dual-gendered, the first recording of a cencus and contagious deseases, and the oldest and most accurate calendar in existence. Such depictions are normally well outside a theology, and today debated in 'scence' forums!You mentioned gravity as an enlightenment. For sure this is advances in knowledge - and is exactly that: normal, garden variety accumulation of knowledge. Perhaps in the distant future humans will advance to unimaginable levels - like being able to move VIRGO to the left of SCORPIO: this is already catered to and is the real meaning behind GO - HAVE DOMINION OF ALL THE UNIVERSE. Gravity, MC2, Spearical planets, Telescopes, Penicilin and pi are advances of knowledge already anticipated and catered to - this need not cease to express new revelation. From a theological POV, new revelation would relate to what a theology does: new moral & spirtual guidelines. The latter has not occured.

Almost as weird as the story about the singularity appearing from nothing and expanding into the universe.I have the same evidence for my belief that I get from the Bible as there is for the weird story about the big band, or whatever you want to call it.I have writings that infer it took place.
We are here.
It must have happened. I got no problem with you being skeptical iceage or anybody else.
Sometimes when I read what I have typed I think that guy is a stark raving mad maniac. It just sounds to impossible to be true.But this is the only place I have ever been able to air these views and get feedback to make me think about what I believe. Everywhere else I have mentioned them in the past 47 years they just say something like preposterous or nutty old man.iceage I believe the Bible and I try to understand what it says not what I want it to say or what someone tells me it says.What I believe about the creation as I understand Genesis 1:1 is not now refuted by science. I always had this stupid idea that the Bible had some revelations in it. Like: This is a fact that science did not discover until about 400 years ago.Then again maybe I am mistaken.

---

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

What "fact" in that passage from Leviticus do you claim was confirmed by science 400 years ago?

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.

Very well. Science shows that the Earth is billions of years younger than the universe. Hence, God did not create it "in the beginning". ’‘ ‘’’ ‘’‘’’‘ ‘’’’ ’ ’‘’‘ ‘‘’’ ‘’’’

A typically objectively verifiable testable prediction I see......Does it really really not matter to you that phenomenon predicted by science as a logical consequence of theory have been totally vindicated whilst no biblical creationist has ever made a verifiable prediction about anything that was not subject to interpretation post the event?Do you understand why science uses prediction as a test of theory?Do you not a agree that in a head to head as to which of two theories is better the one that can accurately predict new phenomenon is by far the superior theory?Your attempts to dismiss this are nothing more than burying your head in the sand.

You're yanking our chain, right?Are there no automobiles where you live? No air pollution? No chemicals classified as Dangerous Goods? Where does the OT mention air piracy? Or even sea piracy?Get real, Joe. You're just being silly.