How does science disprove the Bible?

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.

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.

quote:

---

modulous
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

---

But this says nothing, more than there was nothing. There is the issue of 'nothing' becoming 'something' - which requires energy, forces, programs, matter, light etc - even disregarding a 'mind'. Ultimately, you arrive at Genesis: SOMETHING FROM NOTHING. Like a snap o the finger. I see no dif!