Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does science disprove the Bible?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 85 of 310 (409035)
07-06-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by IamJoseph
07-06-2007 11:47 AM


Re: It is time you actually start supporting your idiotic comments.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by IamJoseph, posted 07-06-2007 11:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by IamJoseph, posted 07-06-2007 10:38 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 310 (409047)
07-06-2007 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by IamJoseph
07-06-2007 10:38 PM


Re: It is time you actually start supporting your idiotic comments.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by IamJoseph, posted 07-06-2007 10:38 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by IamJoseph, posted 07-07-2007 2:50 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 109 of 310 (409105)
07-07-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by IamJoseph
07-07-2007 2:50 AM


Re: It is time you actually start supporting your idiotic comments.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by IamJoseph, posted 07-07-2007 2:50 AM IamJoseph has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 114 of 310 (409120)
07-07-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by w_fortenberry
07-07-2007 12:45 PM


Re: Evidences Answered
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-07-2007 12:45 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-07-2007 7:25 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 138 of 310 (409199)
07-07-2007 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by w_fortenberry
07-07-2007 7:25 PM


Re: Evidences Answered
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-07-2007 7:25 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-08-2007 8:34 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 186 of 310 (409289)
07-08-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by w_fortenberry
07-08-2007 8:34 AM


Re: Evidences Answered
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:
Corals are highly sensitive to environmental changes. Scientists have predicted that over 50% of the coral reefs in the world may be destroyed by the year 2030[15]; as a result they are generally protected through environmental laws. A coral reef can easily be swamped in algae if there are too many nutrients in the water. Coral will also die if the water temperature changes by more than a degree or two beyond its normal range or if the salinity of the water drops. In an early symptom of environmental stress, corals expel their zooxanthellae; without their symbiotic unicellular algae, coral tissues become colorless as they reveal the white of their calcium carbonate skeletons, an event known as coral bleaching.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-08-2007 8:34 AM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-09-2007 10:47 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 247 of 310 (409446)
07-09-2007 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by w_fortenberry
07-09-2007 10:47 AM


Re: Evidences Answered
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-09-2007 10:47 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 252 of 310 (409496)
07-09-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 5:24 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
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.

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 255 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 9:47 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 257 of 310 (409506)
07-09-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 9:47 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 9:47 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 10:28 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 301 of 310 (409654)
07-10-2007 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 10:57 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 10:57 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Chiroptera, posted 07-10-2007 5:25 PM crashfrog 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