Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
41 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,352 Year: 20,388/19,786 Month: 785/2,023 Week: 293/392 Day: 24/129 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does science disprove the Bible?
ringo
Member
Posts: 17518
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 271 of 310 (409536)
07-10-2007 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by kbertsche
07-10-2007 2:13 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
kbertsche writes:

You insist on interpretations which ASSUME scientific error in the Bible.

Not at all. I insist on the most straightforward interpretation, the most likely interpretation, the most parsimonious interpretation, the most logical interpretation.

You have said flat out that an interpretation is acceptable to you if it is "plausible". You might as well say that geocentrism is plausible because epicycles are an acceptable interpretation of the data.

Barely plausible it may be, but the best explanation of the data it is not.

So if we must be restricted to "the stringent rules of science" in this forum, we are stuck.

That too is a given. In the science forums, an irrational approach automatically fails.


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 268 by kbertsche, posted 07-10-2007 2:13 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4227 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 272 of 310 (409538)
07-10-2007 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by kbertsche
07-10-2007 2:18 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
kbertsche writes:

But at some point you have the system calibrated and develop confidence in the data generation.

True, but the bible does not fit that meet that level of confidence in matters of scientific inquiry. Biblical text is not "Data".

As pointed out earlier, no scientific paradigm shift or revelation has ever originated from a literal or *inspired* examination of biblical text. Its predictive record with respect to the natural world is zero. Therefore why would one classify biblical data as preeminent?

You did not answer my question on if you ascribe the same legitimacy to the Koran. and why not.

The Koran mentions that the human body has 360 joints. Should we be looking for a theory that encompasses this "data" as well?

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by kbertsche, posted 07-10-2007 2:18 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 273 of 310 (409541)
07-10-2007 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Coragyps
07-09-2007 10:45 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Thank you.

For the life of the flesh is in the mitochondria:

Fixed it for you.

http://www.microscopy.fsu.edu/cells/mitochondria/mitochondria.html

Mitochondria are rod-shaped organelles that can be considered the power generators of the cell, converting oxygen and nutrients into adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ATP is the chemical energy "currency" of the cell that powers the cell's metabolic activities. This process is called aerobic respiration and is the reason animals breathe oxygen. Without mitochondria (singular, mitochondrion), higher animals would likely not exist because their cells would only be able to obtain energy from anaerobic respiration (in the absence of oxygen), a process much less efficient than aerobic respiration. In fact, mitochondria enable cells to produce 15 times more ATP than they could otherwise, and complex animals, like humans, need large amounts of energy in order to survive.

So what is contained in these Mitochondria, that is the life of the flesh? I know they generate energy and are known as powerhouses.

If I remember correctly they are in all cells except red blood cells, correct me if my memory fails me.

BTW when was this discovered?

Inquiring minds want to know.


"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 241 by Coragyps, posted 07-09-2007 10:45 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 3:20 AM ICANT has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1981 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 274 of 310 (409542)
07-10-2007 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by ringo
07-10-2007 1:32 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
quote:

anastasia
That's the problem with your approach - presupposing where the harmony "should" be.
The honest scientific approach, as I have said, is to see if there is harmony. Only if the predicted harmony is really there can we conclude that it's "truly inspired by God".

I thought I did: did you not say the above in post 261?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 1:32 AM ringo has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1981 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 275 of 310 (409543)
07-10-2007 3:10 AM


Ringo.

Sorry, my error. I put anastaia instead of Ringo.


ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 276 of 310 (409545)
07-10-2007 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Straggler
07-09-2007 10:21 AM


Re: Prediction
Straggler,

I simply made a prediction using information I find in the Bible.

If that prediction comes true then the Bible is proven true.

And it does not make any difference what science says.


"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 239 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2007 10:21 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by nator, posted 07-10-2007 9:33 PM ICANT has not yet responded

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4227 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 277 of 310 (409546)
07-10-2007 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by ICANT
07-10-2007 3:04 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
The Egyptians noted the importance of blood to life way before Leviticus was written.

For more information...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH135_2.html

But note, blood being the "life of the flesh" is really inaccurate or at least incomplete. Blood is only one (but necessary) component of "life of the flesh" there are other components just as necessary.

Also note the Egyptians believed the soul and mind was centered in the heart. The biblical writers evidently were "inspired" to continue that misconception.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 3:04 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 4:01 AM iceage has not yet responded
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 5:59 AM iceage has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 278 of 310 (409550)
07-10-2007 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Dr Adequate
07-09-2007 9:58 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Very well. Science shows that the Earth is billions of years younger than the universe. Hence, God did not create it "in the beginning".

Are you positive of the fact that they could not be created at the same time.

I asked a question earlier and did not get an answer maybe you got one Dr.

If Genesis 1:1 took place 13.7 billion years ago.
Then 5 billion years ago the earth melted with fervent heat. (everything became molten)
The earth then cooled over a period of time.
Would there be any trace of what happened on earth before the meltdown and would it be possible to date the rock past the meltdown?

Emjoy


"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 238 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2007 9:58 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 07-10-2007 9:40 AM ICANT has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1981 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 279 of 310 (409553)
07-10-2007 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by iceage
07-10-2007 3:20 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
quote:

The Egyptians noted the importance of blood to life way before Leviticus was written.

Which is an affirmation of the OT's veracity, as with the independent flood report. No one said the OT was first - it came relatively late in the scene, affirming and negating traditions held, and adding new laws and premises. The test is whether the OT laws are correct, and if the world at large has accepted it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 3:20 AM iceage has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 280 of 310 (409556)
07-10-2007 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Modulous
07-09-2007 9:45 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
I've never heard about a singularity appearing from nothing,

Paul Davies writes:

What happened before the big bang?
The answer is: nothing.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

In the Beginning

The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything. No other model can predict as much as the Big Bang model can.

http://filer.case.edu/~sjr16/cosmos_bigbang.html

The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something.
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7324.html

Imagine Home | Ask an Astrophysicist | Time before the Big Bang

The Question
(Submitted June 29, 2006)

I have trouble seeing how time came to existence from the Big Bang. If this is the case, it will mean no time will before the Big Bang they would be no time for something to cause the Singularity to explode it will be frozen in time without causing any Big Bang.

The Answer
Thanks for your excellent question. You are among some of our great scientific thinkers when it comes to wondering about the beginning of time. The truth is that, we don't yet have a definitive answer. The Big Bang certainly suggests that time began at the first instant of the Big Bang, since before then, the universe was collapsed into a singularity. The notion of time within the Big Bang scenario is discussed at length by Stephen Hawking. Everything is squeezed down to zero and such physical quantities as spacetime become infinite. The singularity is the point at which time has no meaning.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/060629a.html

Modulous writes:

It is not a fact, its complete gobbledegook.

Are you stating it is a scientific fact that the life is in the blood is false, It is just a bunch of gobbledgook?


"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 237 by Modulous, posted 07-09-2007 9:45 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Modulous, posted 07-10-2007 7:08 AM ICANT has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1981 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 281 of 310 (409559)
07-10-2007 5:50 AM


quote:

Paul Davies writes:
What happened before the big bang?
The answer is: nothing.

This is far worse than saying, I DON'T KNOW. Its not science anymore. Imagine saying the same about anything else. The author seems to arrive at the genesis premise, al biet without acknowledging a Creator, thereby opting for the most unscientific premise of all: an effect without a 'cause'!

The other issue is the scientifically credible transition means of nothing to the big bang is missing.

Logic says, a complexity cannot result from nothing, and that the cause has to be transcedent of the effect. At least acedemically, Genesis is a superior premise, denied against an unvindicated premise.

There is no alternative to Creationism. Call me when one is found - I won't argue against it if it is real.


Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2007 1:20 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 282 of 310 (409560)
07-10-2007 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by iceage
07-10-2007 3:20 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
But note, blood being the "life of the flesh" is really inaccurate or at least incomplete. Blood is only one (but necessary) component of "life of the flesh" there are other components just as necessary.

Levi 17:11 (KJV) For the life of the flesh is in the
blood:..........

This verse does not say the BLOOD is the life of the flesh.

This verse says the life of the flesh is IN the blood.

Also note the Egyptians believed the soul and mind was centered in the heart. The biblical writers evidently were "inspired" to continue that misconception.

Duh!

Matt 22:37 (KJV) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Is that the reason Jesus said: heart which=physical.
Mind which=intelligence.
Soul which=spirit.

Making us a trinity made in the likeness and image of God.

I checked your source He can't read no better than you can.

iceage writes:

blood being the "life of the flesh"

Bible writes:

For the life of the flesh is in the
blood

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 277 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 3:20 AM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 11:43 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 417 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 283 of 310 (409564)
07-10-2007 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by ICANT
07-10-2007 5:11 AM


singular gobbledegook
What happened before the big bang?
The answer is: nothing.

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.

Are you stating it is a scientific fact that the life is in the blood is false, It is just a bunch of gobbledgook?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 5:11 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 11:11 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 306 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 9:10 PM Modulous has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 284 of 310 (409572)
07-10-2007 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by ICANT
07-10-2007 3:37 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
ICANT writes:

If Genesis 1:1 took place 13.7 billion years ago.
Then 5 billion years ago the earth melted with fervent heat. (everything became molten)
The earth then cooled over a period of time.
Would there be any trace of what happened on earth before the meltdown and would it be possible to date the rock past the meltdown?"

The empirical evidence that we have indicates that the universe began as a singularity about 13.7 billion years ago, and that the earth completed its formation to reach its current approximate size about 4.56 billion years ago through a process of gradually dragging in material from the early solar system by way of gravity and collisions over millions and millions of years.

It sounds like you're asking what if the earth was formed at the same time as the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, but was molten until about 4.56 billion years ago? Would dating only tell us the date of solidification, or would we be able to tell the earth was actually 13.7 billion years old.

In order to answer your question you would have to provide more information. What kept the earth molten from 13.7 billion years ago about until 4.56 billion years ago? It only takes a few hundred million years for an object the size of the earth to cool from a molten state, so what kept it molten for so long? It couldn't have been the sun, since we know the sun has been around for less than 5 billion years. Or do you want us to assume the sun is 13.7 billion years old, too? If so, then you'd have to ask us to also ignore the evidence that the sun is a typical yellow star about 1/3 of the way through a 15 billion year life cycle.

How do you want us to assume the 13.7 billion year old earth formed? If it formed at the time of the Big Bang, then where did all the heavy elements (e.g., carbon, oxygen, copper, iron, uranium) come from? None of these elements existed at the time of the Big Bang. The sun is a population I star, which is why it (and the rest of the solar system) contains a fair proportion of heavy elements, which tells us it was formed from the detritus of older population II stars after they went nova and supernova, scattering their remnants into the universe to act as the raw material for more stars.

Let me provide a bit more explanation. The only elements formed in the Big Bang were hydrogen, helium and a tiny amount of lithium, and perhaps trace amounts of beryllium (though I'm not so sure about that). Those are the 1st four elements of the periodic table, element numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. No heavier elements existed until hundreds of millions of years later, after the first stars had been born and died as nova and supernova, scattering the first heavy elements into the universe. As time went by and the universe became older and older, the proportion of heavy elements in the universe gradually increased. It's still a tiny proportion compared to hydrogen and helium, but it is gradually increasing as old stars die.

So if the earth were formed at the time of the Big Bang (and we won't even both with how that could have happened since immediately after the Big Bang there weren't even any elements at all - for a short while there was a quark plasma that soon condensed into protons, neutrons, electrons and other particles that were still too hot to form atoms of any permanence). Since there were no heavy elements until millions of years later, where did the heavy elements in the earth come from?

Another question concerns the proportions of the elements that make up the earth. They happen to be the same as the sun and the other planets in the solar system. If the earth had formed 13.7 billion years ago and was only later somehow captured into a near-circular orbit by a then-young sun about 4.56 billion years ago, why does it have the same composition as the sun in terms of types and proportions of elements? The similarity in composition requires that the sun and earth condensed from the same material, but you're postulating a scenario where they condensed at different times billions of years apart and in places billions of light years apart. This coincidence would be very difficult to explain.

To finally answer your question about whether we would be able to tell if the earth was 13.7 billion years old if it had been molten until about 4.56 billion years ago, the answer is yes. A molten state tends to reset radiometric clocks, not because melting has any atomic effect, but because it breaks up the rock crystals that hold elements firmly in place and mixes everything up again. Maybe someone knows of some direct radiometric measurement methods that are not affected by melting and remixing.

But there is an indirect but obvious method, which is made by measuring the presence and proportion of elements with long half-lives. If the earth were actually 13.7 billion years old, then it should contain no radioactive elements with half-lives shorter than about 150 million years, because over 13.7 billion years elements with shorter half-lives would have decayed to undetectable levels. Since elements with half-lives of 150 million years and shorter, all the way down to 50 million years, are still present on the earth, the earth really can't be much older than about 5 billion years. The lack of longer-lived radioactive elements on the earth rules out that possibility.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 3:37 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 10:30 AM Percy has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 285 of 310 (409581)
07-10-2007 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Percy
07-10-2007 9:40 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
To finally answer your question about whether we would be able to tell if the earth was 13.7 billion years old if it had been molten until about 4.56 billion years ago, the answer is yes. A molten state tends to reset radiometric clocks, not because melting has any atomic effect, but because it breaks up the rock crystals that hold elements firmly in place and mixes everything up again.

Percy, now you really got me confused. You say yes the dating would still show it to be 13.7 billion years old but then you raise a question by saying the molten state tends to reset the radiometric clocks because of the mixing. If it reset the clock then it should only show to be 4.56 billion years old.

Percy if you haven't figured out I am a total nut case by now I will cap it for you.

I believe the universe is infinite and has always been here and that on occasions things happen and it starts all over again. When I first started researching I saw the string theory where it was like a cone on both ends. A universe ending and a new one beginning and something similar to that is what I envision.

I know I make some crazy statements sometimes and I ask even crazier questions, but I found that is the best way to get input and answers.

To learn you must ask questions and get answers and do research and more research then you gain a little knowledge I have enjoyed my time here so far.

Its a fun learning experience.


"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 284 by Percy, posted 07-10-2007 9:40 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Percy, posted 07-10-2007 11:06 AM ICANT has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019