Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 9:20 AM
28 online now:
caffeine, jar, JonF, Stile, Tangle (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,896 Year: 8,932/19,786 Month: 1,354/2,119 Week: 114/576 Day: 15/99 Hour: 0/5

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   How does science disprove the Bible?
Inactive Member

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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Chiroptera, posted 07-10-2007 5:25 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Posts: 6617
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9

Message 302 of 310 (409656)
07-10-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by crashfrog
07-10-2007 5:18 PM

Re: Genesis is a Myth
Why does it have to be literally true to tell us truths?

Evidently, because it makes it easier to justify cramming those truths down other people's throats.

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2007 5:18 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Posts: 15034
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2

Message 303 of 310 (409660)
07-10-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by ICANT
07-10-2007 5:10 PM

Re: Genesis is a Myth

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

I asked where it appeared in the narrative. That doesn't answer my question.

And in fact it appears that you don't have an answer. Because it isn't there. You made it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 5:10 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Posts: 15034
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2

Message 304 of 310 (409662)
07-10-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by ICANT
07-10-2007 5:04 PM

Re: singular gobbledegook
Why do you provide four quotes when only one supports your claim ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 5:04 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Suspended Member (Idle past 4078 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 yet responded

Member (Idle past 1832 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007

Message 306 of 310 (409683)
07-10-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Modulous
07-10-2007 7:08 AM

Re: singular gobbledegook
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Modulous, posted 07-10-2007 7:08 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Posts: 18478
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8

Message 307 of 310 (409685)
07-10-2007 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by ICANT
07-10-2007 4:15 PM

Re: Genesis is a Myth
ICANT writes:

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.

I gave the age of the earth since it completed its formation, not since it began its formation. Obviously if the formation was completed 4.56 billion years ago, it must have begun formation some time before that.

Significant collisions kept the young earth molten. Once the earth had cleared out its orbital area, significant collisions ceased, and the earth began cooling, finally reaching the point where rocks could solidify on the earth's surface, bringing the mixing and resorting that resets radiometric clocks to an end, at least on the surface. The cessation of major collisions and the initiation of sustained cooling began around 4.56 billion years ago. The oldest rocks are about 3.9 billion years old, and there's no guarantee that older rocks aren't out there somewhere waiting to be found, but the presence of this 3.9 billions year old rocks means that it took no longer than about 700 million years for the earth's surface to cool sufficiently for the molten material to begin solidifying.

How many years did it take for the solar nebula to condense into the planets? I'm not really sure. I'd look it up if I thought it was important. If it was 10 million years, which is probably a very reasonable number, then the earth began forming 4.57 billion years ago, which is about a quarter of 1% different from the 4.56 billion year age. A little larger than 10 million years, even 100 million years, what difference would it make, those ages of initiation of formation are still far smaller than your 13.7 billion year age.

As PaulK notes, the dating of non-terrestrial rocks from meteorites and the moon and so forth have played a significant role in determining the precise time since the earth formed. They also serve as complementary supporting evidence, since meteorites and the moon are the same approximate age as the earth.

I found a good general summary of how this all came about at http://geology.about.com/od/nutshells/a/aa_earthbirth.htm.

The issue isn't what your God could do, it's what he did do. How are you going to tell whether something God could have done is actually something he really did do? Especially if it isn't in the Bible? In other words, if it has no scientific support and no Biblical support and you can't support it yourself, then this might not be a good time to introduce such ideas into the discussion.

Science answers questions about what really happened by gathering data from the real world and analyzing it. This creates a direct connection between the real world and our hypotheses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 4:15 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001

Message 308 of 310 (409688)
07-10-2007 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 10:28 PM

Re: Genesis is a Myth
Do you have any supposed scientific disproofs of the Bible to put forth?

I have two.

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood.

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that having animals view certain colors or patterns when they are breeding produces offspring with those colors or coat patterns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 10:28 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001

Message 309 of 310 (409690)
07-10-2007 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by ICANT
07-10-2007 3:15 AM

Re: Prediction
I simply made a prediction using information I find in the Bible.

If that prediction comes true then the Bible is proven true.

So, if you make a prediction based upon information in the bible that turns out to fail, is the Bible proven false?

And it does not make any difference what science says.

If you don't care what science says, then why do you try to use it to bolster your position?

It really kills me that people like you, who benefit greatly from hundreds of years of scientific inquiry, who, in fact, are typing on a science-produced computer right now, can so arrogantly dismiss it whenever your irrational belief in magic is threatened.

You should be thanking your lucky stars that mankind invented the scientific method, otherwise we'd stillbe burning goats on altars to Yaweh to ensure a fruitful harvest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 3:15 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 310 of 310 (409708)
07-10-2007 10:23 PM

Closing time. All are welcome to propose focused new topics to continue intresting threads in this one
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019