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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does science disprove the Bible?
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 241 of 310 (409402)
07-09-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by ICANT
07-09-2007 8:49 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
For the life of the flesh is in the mitochondria:
Fixed it for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2007 8:49 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 3:04 AM Coragyps has not replied

w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 242 of 310 (409403)
07-09-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by crashfrog
07-08-2007 1:05 PM


Re: Evidences Answered
If you want to know about coral, I recommend:
Coral...A - Wikipedia massive influx of fresh water - from precipitation - would definitely lower the salinity of ocean water.
Actually coral, just like plankton, is much more resilient to change than most people believe.
For example, this website presents an experiment which shows that bleaching is actually beneficial to plankton rather than harmful.
It's abundantly obvious that he's not saying what you said he said. I don't see any part of your quoted material - nor is there any such text in the book - where he rejects the geocentricity of the universe simply on aesthetic grounds.
quote:
it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe...There is, however, an alternate explanation...Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty:
If you can read statements in plain English, then how is it that you keep denying that Stephen Hawking made this statement.
How do you know that this is what "the Bible clearly means to imply."
Because I can read statements in plain English. What's your problem?
Surely you don't mean for this to be considered a scientific response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 07-08-2007 1:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2007 11:02 AM w_fortenberry has not replied
 Message 245 by Modulous, posted 07-09-2007 11:16 AM w_fortenberry has not replied
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2007 2:07 PM w_fortenberry has not replied
 Message 248 by cavediver, posted 07-09-2007 3:30 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 243 of 310 (409407)
07-09-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by w_fortenberry
07-09-2007 10:47 AM


Re: Evidences Answered
If you can read statements in plain English, then how is it that you keep denying that Stephen Hawking made this statement.
Because he didn't.
Let's all remind ourselves of the garbage you're trying to attribute to Stephen Hawking.
You wrote, in message 113:
The movement of the earth through space is often accepted as a proven fact when, in reality, all available evidence leads to the exact opposite conclusion. In fact Steven Hawking himself admitted as much in his book A Brief History of Time just before stating that he refused to believe that the earth was at the center of the universe because he was too modest to think of his planet as being something special
Of course, he said nothing of the sort, and to say so would be a libel on his professional competence if only you could find someone dumb enough to believe you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-09-2007 10:47 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 244 of 310 (409409)
07-09-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by ICANT
07-08-2007 3:31 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
John 14:6 (KJS) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
quote:
Sounds like there is only one way and you had better find the right one.
LOL!
That is only true if you hold the preconception that the Bible is anything other than yet another book of religious mythology.
Just as you don't believe that the Eightfold Path is the way to Enlightenment and that human desire is the source of all suffering, a Buddhist doesn't believe your God's threats.
You are exhibiting the classic inability to step outside their own narrow thought processes that so many Christians apparently have.
It is impossible for you to look at the bible in any other way but as a believer. You literally cannot adopt, even for the sake of understanding, an academic, or unbeliever's view of the stories within it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 3:31 PM ICANT has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 245 of 310 (409410)
07-09-2007 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by w_fortenberry
07-09-2007 10:47 AM


Re: Evidences Answered
Actually coral, just like plankton, is much more resilient to change than most people believe.
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 can read statements in plain English, then how is it that you keep denying that Stephen Hawking made this statement.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-09-2007 10:47 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 310 (409412)
07-09-2007 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by ICANT
07-08-2007 9:56 PM


Re: An explanation of the attempted point.
I guess that my point was missed.
The question isn't whether an omnipotent being can perform miracles. The question is whether an omnipotent being did perform a miracle in this particular instance, or whether there is a simpler, more mundane explanation.

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 216 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 9:56 PM ICANT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 247 of 310 (409446)
07-09-2007 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by w_fortenberry
07-09-2007 10:47 AM


Re: Evidences Answered
For example, this website presents an experiment which shows that bleaching is actually beneficial to plankton rather than harmful.
Bleaching has nothing to do with it. We're talking about salinity change, silt load, and depth; all three of which are known - known - to be highly destructive to coral. Bleaching is irrelevant.
If you can read statements in plain English, then how is it that you keep denying that Stephen Hawking made this statement.
Because I can read what he wrote, too, and I can see that he didn't say what you said he said. When you quoted him, he wasn't saying what you said he said.
I don't know how to explain it any clearer than that.
Surely you don't mean for this to be considered a scientific response.
No, it was more like a personal inquiry. What's the explanation for the fact that you appear unable to arrive at the plainly correct interpretation of simple statements in English?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-09-2007 10:47 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 248 of 310 (409463)
07-09-2007 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by w_fortenberry
07-09-2007 10:47 AM


Re: Evidences Answered
The movement of the earth through space is often accepted as a proven fact when, in reality, all available evidence leads to the exact opposite conclusion. In fact Steven Hawking himself admitted as much in his book A Brief History of Time just before stating that he refused to believe that the earth was at the center of the universe because he was too modest to think of his planet as being something special (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes - New York: Bantam Books, 1990 - pg. 42).
quote:
it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe...There is, however, an alternate explanation...Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty:
  —Hawking
If you can read statements in plain English, then how is it that you keep denying that Stephen Hawking made this statement.
Sorry to jump in here but you do realise don't you that Hawking is not talking about the Earth here? He is talking about our entire Galaxy being the centre of the Universe. The Earth is just one tiny miniscule lump of grit in this gargantuan swirl of over 200 billion stars, and the Earth very much moves in this Galaxy - it rotates, orbits the Sun, and follows the Sun on a huge orbit around the Galaxy core. Sorry...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-09-2007 10:47 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 249 of 310 (409477)
07-09-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by iceage
07-08-2007 7:09 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
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.
Would you say the same thing about science, I wonder? Would you complain about someone who presupposes that a new piece of scientific data must square with reality? Would you say that trying to produce a theory which encompasses all of the data is "madness" and will "mislead others"? Would you subject each new piece of data to a prolonged epistemological investigation?
In biblical theology, the biblical text is the "data", analogous to scientific data. The epistemological issues have (hopefully) already been addressed and the data is trusted. From this point, biblical interpretation proceeds analogously to development of a scientific theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 7:09 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2007 5:44 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 251 by PaulK, posted 07-09-2007 5:48 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 252 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2007 9:06 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 267 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 2:02 AM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 250 of 310 (409481)
07-09-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 5:24 PM


Prediction Again
Would you say the same thing about science, I wonder?
Making theories and interpretations fit facts is relatively easy and very subjective way of convincing yourself of almost anything you want.
Prediction is the hallmark of a good theory as it is all but imposible to make new facts fit dogmatic theories.
Science tests it's theories against prediction, refutation and verification.
BB and ToE have been indisputably verified due to this.
Biblical interpretations are nothing but after the event hindsight driven wishful thinking. Not a prediction in sight and no verification as a result.
So to answer your question, no, science is not in the same position as biblical interpretation as regards new data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 5:24 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 9:58 PM Straggler has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 251 of 310 (409483)
07-09-2007 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 5:24 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
If a scientist was caught warping the data to fit theory he would be met with disapproval from his colleagues. It is quite telling that you think that such behaviour is the corrct thing to do.
The Bible does not claim to be inerrant. Nor does it claim to be the literal word of God. This is a "theory" that the "data" does not fully support. Yet you feel free to manipulate the "data" to fit that "theory". You want a comparison with science ? OK, you are engaging in obvious mispractice. That's your comparison on your terms - what you asked for. Are you going to behave in the way a scientst should and publicly retract your claims ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 5:24 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 9:42 PM PaulK has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 252 of 310 (409496)
07-09-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 5:24 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
The epistemological issues have (hopefully) already been addressed and the data is trusted.
Um, precisely backwards. The issue has been settled; the Bible is no more reliable than any other historical document; due to a series of redactions, actually, it's even less reliable.
The "data" of the Bible is not trusted by anybody who isn't already ideologically committed to it being true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 5:24 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 9:47 PM crashfrog has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 253 of 310 (409500)
07-09-2007 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by iceage
07-09-2007 2:45 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Let me underscore the concept. No scientific discovery ever originated from the Bible. So why consider it to be a scientific document?
Did someone in this thread claim that the Bible was a "scientific document"? If so, I missed it. But either way, this is orthogonal to the question of whether or not science disproves the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by iceage, posted 07-09-2007 2:45 AM iceage has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 254 of 310 (409501)
07-09-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by PaulK
07-09-2007 5:48 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
If a scientist was caught warping the data to fit theory he would be met with disapproval from his colleagues. It is quite telling that you think that such behaviour is the corrct thing to do.
You completely misread what I wrote! I violently agree with you that this is NOT the correct thing to do. If scientific data does not fit a scientific theory, the THEORY must be modified. If the biblical data does not support a biblical interpretation, the INTERPRETATION must be modified. In either case, the data must not be warped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by PaulK, posted 07-09-2007 5:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 10:33 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 270 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2007 2:30 AM kbertsche has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 255 of 310 (409502)
07-09-2007 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by crashfrog
07-09-2007 9:06 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Um, precisely backwards. The issue has been settled; the Bible is no more reliable than any other historical document; due to a series of redactions, actually, it's even less reliable.
The "data" of the Bible is not trusted by anybody who isn't already ideologically committed to it being true.
This is a matter of opinion, and I completely disagree with your statements. But this is off-topic; it's history, not science. Let's get back to science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2007 9:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2007 10:12 PM kbertsche has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024