Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 8:49 PM
100 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (4 members, 96 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Post Volume:
 Total: 848,560 Year: 3,597/19,786 Month: 592/1,087 Week: 182/212 Day: 24/25 Hour: 0/2

Author Topic:   How does science disprove the Bible?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7

 Message 286 of 310 (409588) 07-10-2007 11:06 AM Reply to: Message 285 by ICANT07-10-2007 10:30 AM

Re: Genesis is a Myth
ICANT writes:

 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.

Yes, that's correct. A molten state would reset the clocks for the direct (note the bold) radiometric dating methods I'm familiar with.

But my last paragraph starts, "But there is an indirect (note the bold) but obvious method..." The presence of very long-lived radiometric elements on earth says that the earth could not be 13.7 billion years old, because if it was then those elements would have had sufficient time to decay to undetectable levels. Since we can still measure detectable levels of these elements, the earth can't be 13.7 billion years old.

Here's an analogy. You own a car that gets 20 miles/gallon and has a 15 gallon tank. The odometer and speedometer do not work. You fill up your tank and drive with a friend at unknown speeds for an unknown amount of time on a trip, and at the end of the trip your friend announces that he thinks you've driven 500 miles. You look down at the gas gauge, which works and is accurate, and see you have half a tank of gas left. Could your friend be correct?

Of course not. With a 15 gallon tank and 20 miles/gallon, you would have run out of gas 200 miles ago. Since you have detectable amounts of gas left, in fact a whole half tank, you could not possibly have driven 500 miles. You tell your friend that you've driven only about 150 miles.

So just as you know you couldn't possibly have driven 500 miles simply because you've still got a half tank of gas, scientists know the earth couldn't possibly be 13.7 million years old simply because we've still got long-lived radiometric elements left, which the passage of 13.7 billion years would have used up by now.

So to conclude, while there were many unanswered questions in your proposed scenario of a 13.7 billion year-old earth that somehow formed right away and stayed molten for another 9 billion years, the fact that long-lived radiometric elements are still around is evidence that the earth is not that old.

 I believe the universe is infinite and has always been here and that on occasions things happen and it starts all over again.

As long as you have empirical evidence and rational thinking for what you believe, you're doing science.

 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.

While string theory does has cosmological implications, I'm not sure it would be accurate to say that cyclical universe hypotheses derive from string theory. Maybe Cavediver will comment.

Anyway, the types of hypotheses you're hitching your horse to do not postulate that anything survives from one universe to the next. If there was another universe that preceded this one, there are no planets or stars left over from it.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 285 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 10:30 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 288 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 11:33 AM Percy has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 287 of 310 (409590) 07-10-2007 11:11 AM Reply to: Message 283 by Modulous07-10-2007 7:08 AM

Re: singular gobbledegook
 Levi 17:11 (KJV) For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Sorry for blotching that post as to make it where you did not get the point. I don't like to quote part of a verse and so I left all in not thinking that you think a lot different than I do.

I think my Message 282 will clear up what I was getting at.

To explain the rest of the verse, God was talking about the shed blood of Jesus that was shed for the sins of all mankind even though it did not take place for quite some time. But as far as God was concerned it was a done deal.

 I am perfectly happy to discuss cosmology in more depth with you if you'd like,

Modulous, I don't know anything about anything scientific. I do know about selective breeding to produce hybrids as a farm boy. I know quite a bit about what the Bible says been studying it for 48 years. But I am learning here about a lot of things.

In Message 285 to Percy I mentioned my thoughts about the universe.
I mentioned about the string theory where I saw a picture of 2 cones back to back with one universe imploding and one being born out the other side. I think this has been going on for infinity.

I also believe in the future the earth will melt with fervent heat and there will be a new heaven and new earth. I believe it because the Bible says it will happen. I have read where some of our scientist believe it is going to happen because of what they see in the evidence. That I don't know about I will just leave that up to them.

 2Pet 3:10 (KJV) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

 Reve 21:1 (KJS) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Two different writers one telling us it was going to melt and another telling us there was going to be a new heaven and a new earth.

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 283 by Modulous, posted 07-10-2007 7:08 AM Modulous has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 293 by Modulous, posted 07-10-2007 1:30 PM ICANT has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 288 of 310 (409595) 07-10-2007 11:33 AM Reply to: Message 286 by Percy07-10-2007 11:06 AM

Re: Genesis is a Myth
 Anyway, the types of hypotheses you're hitching your horse to do not postulate that anything survives from one universe to the next. If there was another universe that preceded this one, there are no planets or stars left over from it.

That is what I am saying everything comes out on the other side brand new. Like all those junk cars we ship to china are coming back as TV's, cell phones, and all the metal in walmart and Home Depot stores.

But Percy I am going on things I get from the Bible.

Let me try to put what I believe about God in prospective. I believe God can do anything. I have had personal experiences that have convinced me of the fact that God does exist. That He is much more powerful than the mind of man can begin to imagine. So why would He be limited to doing this human experiment just one time. Why not 2, 3, 20, 30 1000 or even more. He could even have it going on in other parts of the universe now. I will not put a limit on what my God can do.

I(just)CANT get over the fact that God loved me, poor wretched man that I am.

"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 286 by Percy, posted 07-10-2007 11:06 AM Percy has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 291 by Percy, posted 07-10-2007 1:05 PM ICANT has responded

iceage
Suspended Member (Idle past 3992 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 ICANT07-10-2007 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 yet responded

Inactive Member

 Message 290 of 310 (409599) 07-10-2007 12:26 PM

Wind it up, folks - we're getting close to that 300-post mark.
 Replies to this message: Message 296 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 4:41 PM AdminCoragyps has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7

 Message 291 of 310 (409601) 07-10-2007 1:05 PM Reply to: Message 288 by ICANT07-10-2007 11:33 AM

Re: Genesis is a Myth
 ICANT writes:But Percy I am going on things I get from the Bible.

There's nothing wrong with that, just realize that's revelation, not science. If within your own mind you choose to be absolutely certain that your Bible-based views are correct and science is wrong, that's fine.

It only becomes a problem when you make testable claims about the natural world, because that's the realm of science.

 Let me try to put what I believe about God in prospective. I believe God can do anything. I have had personal experiences that have convinced me of the fact that God does exist. That He is much more powerful than the mind of man can begin to imagine. So why would He be limited to doing this human experiment just one time. Why not 2, 3, 20, 30 1000 or even more. He could even have it going on in other parts of the universe now. I will not put a limit on what my God can do.

That's fine. But there's a significant difference between what God could do and what God did do. Sure, maybe God has repeated the human experiment countless times, and maybe not. How would you know? Your recent speculations come from you, not from the Bible, and as we know, it is God's word in the Bible that is infallible, not discussion board speculations.

If you're doing religion, then you preach your gospel and see how many followers flock to your doors.

If you're doing science, then you present your evidence and arguments to the scientific community and see if you can build a consensus.

The two approaches, religion and science, don't really have much to do with one another. Conflicts only arise when religion makes testable claims about the natural world, such as that the earth is actually 6000 years old or 13.7 billion years old. Neither of these claims is supported by any empirical evidence and at present would fall into the solidly falsified category.

The question of this thread, how does science disprove the Bible, might be better phrased, "To what degree are literal Biblical interpretations falsified by science?" If we're talking about YECism, then the answer is, "To a very high degree." And if we're talking ID, then ID's caginess with respect to specificity leaves it with no testable claims to validate, since saying that the bacterial flagellum looks designed carries no more weight than that a cloud passing overhead looks like the Pillsbury Dough Boy.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 288 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 11:33 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 294 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 4:15 PM Percy has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

 Message 292 of 310 (409603) 07-10-2007 1:20 PM Reply to: Message 281 by IamJoseph07-10-2007 5:50 AM

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

How can we ask what cam ebefore the BB if time was created at the BB? Before has no meaning without time.

If BB is false how was the specific measurable Cosmic Background Radiation predicted so accurately from this theory?

 This message is a reply to: Message 281 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 5:50 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

 Message 293 of 310 (409605) 07-10-2007 1:30 PM Reply to: Message 287 by ICANT07-10-2007 11:11 AM

Re: singular gobbledegook
 To explain the rest of the verse, God was talking about the shed blood of Jesus that was shed for the sins of all mankind even though it did not take place for quite some time. But as far as God was concerned it was a done deal.

I don't see that - I see stuff about animal sacrifices (see verses 3-9) and dietary restrictions (10-16). Nothing about a man bleeding for the sins of humanity.

 Modulous, I don't know anything about anything scientific.

No worries. Then let it be known that the genesis story is far more incredible (as in 'not credible') or absurd than the physics of cosmology which seem occasionally counter-intuitive, but actually extraordinarily beautiful, symmetrical and simple.

Feel free to pop on over to the cosmology forum for a read around, there are some interesting thoughts there.

 This message is a reply to: Message 287 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 11:11 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 299 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 5:04 PM Modulous has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 294 of 310 (409635) 07-10-2007 4:15 PM Reply to: Message 291 by Percy07-10-2007 1:05 PM

Re: Genesis is a Myth
 Your recent speculations come from you, not from the Bible,

I do know we had a beginning to this phase we are in at the present time according to the Bible. Genesis 1:2-2:3 covers this phase,
Genesis 1:1 and 2:4-4:26 was a phase, and there is a phase where everything is going to meltdown and we will have a new heaven and a new earth.

2Peter 3:10 and Rev.21:1 will be the next phase. The Bible tells me this event is going to take place in the future. The other two have already taken place.

The rest I was exercising my mind letting it wander around in possibilities.

Message 284

 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.

But Percy you are saying the earth was fully formed 4:56 billion years ago. But that it had taken millions and millions of years to grow to the present size. Are you sure it didn't take billions of years? But nevertheless you have it older than 4.56 billion years.

"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 291 by Percy, posted 07-10-2007 1:05 PM Percy has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 295 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2007 4:23 PM ICANT has responded Message 307 by Percy, posted 07-10-2007 9:15 PM ICANT has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14750
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7

 Message 295 of 310 (409637) 07-10-2007 4:23 PM Reply to: Message 294 by ICANT07-10-2007 4:15 PM

Re: Genesis is a Myth
In case you've forgotten your huge gap between Genesis 4 and 5 is your invention. It isn't in the Bible at all.

The Earth is not likely to be billions of years older than current science says because that estimate was not based solely -or even largely - on the Earth's rocks. They're all younger. Metorites were more important and they should give the date that the solar system was forming. Likewise the Sun - which should be older than the Earth - is not especially old as stars go.

 This message is a reply to: Message 294 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 4:15 PM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 297 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 4:47 PM PaulK has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 296 of 310 (409639) 07-10-2007 4:41 PM Reply to: Message 290 by AdminCoragyps07-10-2007 12:26 PM

Re-Blood
 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. Neither does it say the spark of life.

 iceage writes:But the life of the flesh in not IN the blood. Show how this is true.

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.

 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.

 iceage writes:Blood is necessary for some (not all) life to exist as are other bodily components. The "spark" of life exists outside the blood.

Duh Read the next scripture I supplied with the comments.

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 290 by AdminCoragyps, posted 07-10-2007 12:26 PM AdminCoragyps has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 305 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 6:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 297 of 310 (409641) 07-10-2007 4:47 PM Reply to: Message 295 by PaulK07-10-2007 4:23 PM

Re: Genesis is a Myth
 In case you've forgotten your huge gap between Genesis 4 and 5 is your invention. It isn't in the Bible at all.

But I don't have a big gap between Genesis 4 and 5.They could have been hours or minutes but I think it was a little longer than that.
I do have a long day between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 5:1 which begins at Genesis 1:2.

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 295 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2007 4:23 PM PaulK has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 298 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2007 4:58 PM ICANT has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14750
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7

 Message 298 of 310 (409646) 07-10-2007 4:58 PM Reply to: Message 297 by ICANT07-10-2007 4:47 PM

Re: Genesis is a Myth
You certainly did place a big gap between Genesis 4 and Genesis 5. YOu claimed that the people menbtioned at the start of Genesis 5 were completely different people form those at the end of Genesis 4, living millions of years later. Despite the fact that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they aren't the same people.

You've got to put that gap - now billions of years - somewhere in the narrative or abandon your whole interpretation. So where do you put it now ? In Genesis 4 ? Between Genesis 3 and Genesis 4 ? In Genesis 3 ?

 This message is a reply to: Message 297 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 4:47 PM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 300 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 5:10 PM PaulK has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 299 of 310 (409650) 07-10-2007 5:04 PM Reply to: Message 293 by Modulous07-10-2007 1:30 PM

Re: singular gobbledegook
 No worries. Then let it be known that the genesis story is far more incredible (as in 'not credible') or absurd than the physics of cosmology which seem occasionally counter-intuitive, but actually extraordinarily beautiful, symmetrical and simple.

 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 BeginningThe 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 AnswerThanks 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.

There are scientist saying here that there was nothing now there is something.

My question where did it come from?

It is easier to believe it came from God than it came from nothing.

Have Fun.

"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 293 by Modulous, posted 07-10-2007 1:30 PM Modulous has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 304 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2007 6:01 PM ICANT has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 300 of 310 (409653) 07-10-2007 5:10 PM Reply to: Message 298 by PaulK07-10-2007 4:58 PM

Re: Genesis is a Myth
 You've got to put that gap - now billions of years - somewhere in the narrative

If you will read the message you are replying to you will see that I put those billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 4:26 It was one long day, and shortly there after you have Genesis 1:2 and the 7 days of Moses that the generations of 5:1 and onward tell you about.

Enjoy

Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

"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 298 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2007 4:58 PM PaulK has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 303 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2007 5:59 PM ICANT has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Rew Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic