|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: How does science disprove the Bible? | |||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think the point here is that the fact that a document mentions places that actually exist is not evidence of its veracity. Jar mentions "Huck Finn" as a known work of fiction set in very real places; my favorite example is Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, because I can personally vouch for the existence of Verona, Italy.
Your little snipe at his expense doesn't impeach Jar's point - the mere mention of cities that are known to exist doesn't corroborate any part of the Bible. Those cities would have been known to the Bible writers, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Perhaps the Israelites had advanced computers which archived 1000s of names, dates and places for a period of 3000 years. I don't understand what you're trying to say. No, they didn't have computers. Yes, they were meticulous record keepers. It's widely believed by historians that the ancient Hebrews invented two-column accounting - a practice standard to this day.
The confusing part is that Shakespear had access to good historical archives - and these were not around with the Israelites! Er, wait, what? Why don't you think the Isrealites had historic records?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There were no archive libraries at the relevant time - not for a 1000 years later. Why do you think that? As I said, they were meticulous record keepers. I don't find it unreasonable to suspect that major Israelite families would have been keeping their own genealogical records, which the OT writers cribbed. That would also explain the genealogical inconsistencies in the OT account; the result of synthesizing the records of several houses that had, individually, "scrubbed" or altered their genealogy for self-serving reasons. And perhaps the records don't go back as far as you think; it's highly likely that the tail end of these records would all doubtless be the same religious fabrication - as in, everybody started their genealogy from the same ficticious basis.
Even today, we could not record or recall the vast data of 3000 years ago Just to put it in perspective how wrong you are about how unlikely this is, the Great Library of Alexandria was founded in the 3rd century BC and stood until it's destruction nearly 1000 years later.
Think about what you are saying? You're going to have to explain in greater depth what exactly you think is so wrong about what I'm saying. They were meticulous record-keepers, so why would it be so unusual for them to have records?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We must also remember that the fish were not destroyed by the flood (Gen 7:21-23). Since all fish would have been destroyed by the flood - it being impossible for the vast majority of fish to survive such a drastic change to their environment's salinity and silt load - the existence of fish in the contemporary world is evidence both of the flood being a myth and the Bible being false.
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). Um, no, that's not really what he says at all.
Actually, the exact distances between the stars is unknown. Abundantly false. Parallax gives us a very precise measurement of the distance of the nearest stars to the Earth. That sets a minimum distance, of course, for all the others.
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. Again, abundantly false. With more than 99% of the mass of the solar system concentrated in the Sun, it's obvious that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the reverse being true. And, indeed, it's obvious that the Sun must rotate around the super-massive center of the galaxy, like all other Milky Way stars. There's just no doubt in the 21st century that the scientific model of the universe is correct and the geocentric model is proven false.
This verse merely states that the earth has a circle which is true, for all spheres are composed of circles. Not "has", "is". And a sphere and a circle are very different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There is a large amount of evidence for fish and plankton being able to survive salinity changes. A few fish; some plankton; absolutely no coral. Since coral still exist, it's clear that there was no flood.
But parallax assumes that the star has not moved in relation to the earth during the six months that it takes to make the two measurements. That's easy enough to verify if you wait another six months. Long-term observation of stars proves that your concerns are unjustified.
Allow me to give you a direct quote from the book. No need; I own it. I still don't see where he says what you said he said.
Note that the phrase is "circle of the earth" not "the earth is a circle." Regardless, the Bible clearly means to imply a circular, not spherical, Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I would like to see something similar to the two articles which I provided to support my statements. None of your articles had any experimental evidence. If you want to know about coral, I recommend:
Coral - Wikipedia quote: A massive influx of fresh water - from precipitation - would definitely lower the salinity of ocean water.
If you do not except my conclusion regarding Mr. Hawking's statement, then please provide an alternative conclusion. 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. As I stated previously the mass concentration of the universe is sufficient to reject geocentricity. It's ludicrous to assert that the sun, which is 99.8% of the mass of the entire Solar System, somehow revolves around the Earth.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This is a matter of opinion I don't see what opinion has to do with it. Either the Bible is an objectively verified source of factual historical information, or its not. And it's not. I don't see what possibility for discussion there is on this issue. There's no evidence that the Bible has any greater veracity than any other document for which we don't have the originals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
2) interpret the text in harmony with extra-biblical data (my approach) This is essentially circular reasoning. If you start from the assumption that no "valid" interpretation of the Bible can be contradicted by the consensus scientific view, then obviously you're not going to find any "valid" interpretations that are contradicted by science. The question isn't "how can we interpret the Bible in accordance with scientific understanding of the world", it's "how do we interpret the Bible in the way its authors intended?" And the question is, do statements in the Bible, as interpreted with their original meaning, contradict our scientific understanding of the world? In an abundance of cases, the answer to that question is clearly "yes." But if you insist on interpreting the Bible not in any defensibly authentic way, but with whatever backbends are necessary to cram it in-line with modern science, then naturally you're going to be able to do that. The Bible, like any text, is infinitely pliable. The question is, why bother? If the Bible has meaning that you cherish, why would you have to reject that meaning simply because the Bible leaves much to be desired as a science text? Does Romeo and Juliet lose any meaning when we understand that neither Romeo nor Juliet were people who actually existed? That, indeed, Shakespeare had never been to Verona? It was once said that "art is a lie that tells us the truth." The same could be applied to all myths. Why can't the Bible remain meaningful even as we percieve it to be mythical? Why does it have to be literally true to tell us truths?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024