Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 213 of 310 (409354)
07-08-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by ICANT
07-08-2007 9:24 PM


Re: Prediction
ICANT writes:
If that does not happen, you win.
I predict ICANT you will die and not see paradise if you worship a polytheistic religion and deny Allah as the only God. Granting Godhood to a prophet is blasphemous.
I would suggest some Sunday school for you ICANT
Pascal's wager - Wikipedia
Check out the rebuttal section.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 9:24 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by AdminPD, posted 07-08-2007 10:00 PM iceage has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 227 of 310 (409375)
07-09-2007 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by ICANT
07-08-2007 10:49 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
ICANT writes:
Everything in Genesis 2:4-4:26 took place the same day as it claims in Genesis 2:4. You say no way, that covers too many years.
Well there was no night created yet so there was only light. There was no time as there was nothing to mark time. So for a very long extended time there was only day.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 10:49 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by IamJoseph, posted 07-09-2007 1:51 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 231 by IamJoseph, posted 07-09-2007 2:14 AM iceage has replied
 Message 235 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2007 8:49 AM iceage has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 233 of 310 (409383)
07-09-2007 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by IamJoseph
07-09-2007 2:14 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
iceage writes:
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.
IamJoseph writes:
Give an example what new enlightenment you think should have been revealed - but was not?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by IamJoseph, posted 07-09-2007 2:14 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by IamJoseph, posted 07-09-2007 8:00 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 253 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 9:36 PM iceage has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 267 of 310 (409528)
07-10-2007 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 5:24 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
kbertsche writes:
Would you complain about someone who presupposes that a new piece of scientific data must square with reality?
kbertsche the very premise of science is that data and observation squares with reality.
You seem to think that the data must square with a theory - this is backwards and bad science and a poor method to discover truth.
kbertsche writes:
Would you say that trying to produce a theory which encompasses all of the data is "madness" and will "mislead others"?
You are using the term "data" very loosely. If you tried to produce a theory that encompasses astrology and astronomy that is indeed folly.
kbertsche writes:
Would you subject each new piece of data to a prolonged epistemological investigation?
Yes, yes and yes again. I work in a scientific environment and quantifying, calibrating and qualifying data is the primary concern.
Invalid data leads to invalid conclusions.
The quality of the Data is key. Myths and legends are not data (except from a historical or cultural perspective). Noah's flood story is not geological data nor is the description of the cyclopes in the Odyssey a zoological report.
kbertsche writes:
In biblical theology, the biblical text is the "data", analogous to scientific data.
Do you afford the holy Koran the same legitimacy? is the text of the Koran "data"? If not why not.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

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 269 by kbertsche, posted 07-10-2007 2:18 AM iceage has replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 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 replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 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...
CH135.2: Life blood
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 replied

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

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 289 of 310 (409597)
07-10-2007 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by ICANT
07-10-2007 5:59 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
ICANT writes:
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.
But the life of the flesh in not IN the blood. Show how this
is true.
Blood is necessary for some (not all) life to exist as are other bodily components. The "spark" of life exists outside the blood.
iceage writes:
Also note the Egyptians believed the soul and mind was centered in the heart. The biblical writers evidently were "inspired" to continue that misconception.
ICANT writes:
Duh!
What is so Duh about this. The point is that the Bible is not "inspired" by a being that is all knowing. The Biblical insight reflects the current knowledge and understanding of the time when it was produced.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 5:59 AM ICANT has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 305 of 310 (409666)
07-10-2007 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by ICANT
07-10-2007 4:41 PM


Re: Re-Blood
ICANT writes:
Red corpusals carry all the oxygen to the Mitochondria.
The white carry the nutrients to the Mitochondria.
The Mitochondria converts this into ATP energy.
The red corpusals are the only cells The Mitochondria are not in.
Without the oxygen and nutrients there would be no energy and thus no life.
You established that blood is a cog in the wheel of some life. Take the cog out it and life quits working. But there are many many other cogs just as important bile, electrolytes, gastric acids, brain chemistry, enzymes of all sorts, also lungs, heart, etc. Heck they even have artificial blood these days. Also there is life that does not use blood.
The life of the flesh is not IN blood. The blood is component of the machine.
Regardless your attempt in all this is make some claim that the Bible some how demonstrated advanced biological knowledge. It doesn't. Other older cultures got the connection between blood and life.
OBTW "Heart" is incorrect metaphor, and one the persists to this day because of the influence of Bible in our culture. You cannot love with all your heart - your heart is pump.
More than happy to pick up this notion of "Life is IN the Blood" in another thread if you can properly frame your position.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 4:41 PM ICANT 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