How does science disprove the Bible?

I don't see what you are tying to prove here at all. Yes the names of people, kingdoms, regions and cities can be found in archeology and common for the period of the writing of the various texts of the Bible... err so....The same can be said of the Iliad and Odyessy - was there really a Trojan War? very likely to some extent. Did a one-eyed cyclops really exist?. My bets are no.

1 Planck time - 1.85510^-43 of a second.King Hezekiah would have to be a very observant fellow to take notice.Well there is this and also Joshua's Long Day.These are myths and legends! Not true and real stories! People don't embarrass yourselves by trying to apply some pseudoscience to somehow make it true.The simple fact, demonstrated in other ancient writings and stories, is that the ancient progenitors of these myths lacked understanding of the true nature of the solar system.

And just how does planck time or any other pseudoscience explanations help you out here? Ummm.... altering the rotation of the earth would have several disastrous consequences that would tend to get noticed. Oh but one could also accelerate the sun and planets and leave the earth alone. This would also have several disastrous consequences that would tend to get noticed. That is probably one of the most strained and contrived explanations I have heard yet. ICANT you do have a away of interpreting and twisting scripture to fit whatever your present purpose is.So do you believe that John 1:5 was referring to physical light.Joshua and the King Hezekiah myth refer to day light not God's light.

ICANT I just went back to read the relevant passage in Joshua Chapter 10.It reads... Does this sound like God making a half-time appearance and lighting the way for the Israelites to complete their genocidal mission. Nice ethical message there to boot.And the part of God hurling stones is great stuff too. This is a caricature of God.But keeping to the topic. Passages about shadows moving backward and the Sun holding sway certainly indicates the that text is not "divinely inspired". Unless you are of the opinion that God, the creator of galaxies, will suspend the laws locally just to help one tribe kill off another.But if this God suspends the physical laws why would he involve himself in seemingly earthy and mundane ways such as "hurl stones from heaven" just to help out. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Of course not. To do so would demonstrate understanding well beyond the time. Yes maybe just a local refraction of light. However, if God is going to suspend the laws of physics why not just suspend those related to mass and momentum and actually stop the earth. One is not any more miraculous than the other. Why do apologetics search for the lowest energy solution? Is this mythical caricature vision of God not powerful enough. The point is the passage in in concordance to what was believed at the time (ie the earth is flat and stationary). It does not correspond to a modern heliocentric solar system, it is in conflict.What about Joshua's long day. It says the Sun and Moon stopped. Do you believe like ICANT that was just God providing his light? Do you believe that God hurled (hail)stones from some mezzanine in heaven to help out?This also is not only conflict with science but is in conflict with reason.

Except that is not what it says..."The sun stood still and the moon stayed---and hasted not to go down about a whole day" Errr you mean killing field. Did miss the part where the slew everything including women and children as a form of a pay back. Do on to others as they have done on to you - that it is the ethic principle right. Read the passage - the sun and moon was stayed. Combine that with our modern knowledge of heliocentric solar system and the rest follows.

Sigh... Do I really have to detail this out - A day is due to the rotation of the earth.The text you are attempting (and quite poorly) to defend says the sun and moon stood still. To understanding at the time that meant in reference to the earth (ie the day was long).This did not cause much of a cosmological issue in the day since it was believed that the sun and moon was some smallish independent orbs in the firmament.Today we know for the "sun to stand still" requires the stopping of the rotation of the earth and incidentally an independent stopping of the moon in its orbit. This is monstrous and preposterous event all just to support the destruction and killing of the Amorites.These passages demonstrate the complete lack of understanding of the nature of cosmos. As someone earlier pointed out, these passages also talk about the stopping of these celestial bodies over specific regions of the earth.True to the topic at hand these passage serve the purpose of answering the topic quite well! Science does indeed disprove the Bible.

kbertsche have you even read the Joshua 10?If you can get it to mean cloud cover then you can get any verse in the bible to mean anything you want! Quite frankly the Expositor's Bible Commentary is full of blasphemous BS. You will need to work harder on your translation to get it to mean "cloud cover". No offense but I am very amazed on how far people will go to twist passages to fit to their preconceived notions. Yes agreed this does not make sense! To the cosmology at the time this was reasonable as the Sun and moon were placed in the firmament or vault. Whoaa! Poetry... You have to kidding. This is not written as poetry. There is nothing to suggest poetry.Genesis 1 is poetry but most fundamentalist refuse that obvious classificationI don't care much for poetry that describes genocide and repaying evil with evil do you? Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Yup. I think you got it.Genesis does not square with what science has revealed. Statement of fact. Even in general notional terms, Genesis does not match the order of appearance of life forms that scientific investigation and study has revealed. Genesis 1 is at odds with Genesis 2 because they are different myths.Genesis just like Joshua is what is called a myth - stories which often include religious, ethnic and political content that get handed down orally for generations and get embellished and often include insertions from myths of surrounding culture. The information is all there you just have to approach the subject with diligence and an undodging commitment to truth. Consider to what end these miracles are. God halts the earth from spinning, the moon in its orbit just so that his chosen race can kill their enemies (women and children included) using crude implements of war. It is absurd and outrageous.However very keeping with the times - every read Iliad or Odyssey. These are stories of the same quality and flavor of other mythology of the era, only a child could believe these things actually happened.Doesn't it sound like a small vision of the God with phrasing like "the LORD fought for Israel" or the "Lord is a Man of war" or the "The Lord grew angry". For crying out loud, these depictions shrink God down to a human superhero at best. The God that created galaxies is not going to cheer from some heavenly mezzanine hurling large hailstones in a struggle for some infinitesimal small chunk of land against a people that he also supposedly created in his own image?And after all this mythic superhero trash talk we are left with the overall moral message that we should pay evil with evil. You make religion sound like some Gullibility Game show. Somebody point this out recently - http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php - it is very funny because it crystallizes the reward/punishment for belief notion in a familiar but more objective framework.Do really believe that God is recruiting only those who can deceive themselves for primarily selfish reasons? Oh and BTW, you think you have the winning ticket, but if you are not Muslim,Catholic, Mormon, etc. you are going to their version of the lake of fire.

The whole context of the chapter is the need for more daylight to finish off the battle. The cloud cover is not an inference, but a corruption of the text. Looks like the bible needs a Poetry markup

Mythical unbelievable stuff here

I quoted this only because it is a shinning example of religious intellectual extrapolation of meaning in order to superimpose a prior preconception belief.Let me see if I have this correct...You have translated"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."to mean"The day was dark and stormy and because of the darkness (not too dark to fight mind you) some thought that the sun hasted down which is silly of course since the sun does not hasten down as everyone knows"ICANT are you reading this above - I am beginning to like your idea of God providing his loving light to illuminate genocide.And aside but on topic, kbertsche, do you believe Genesis is poetry?

These are words in book - not anything more. This claim is of the same quality as all the other claims of exclusivity.There are also words in the Koran and Book of Mormon.Also these are words in a book chock full of contradictions, mythic stories and inconsistencies with much evidence of merging, editions and additions.The bible is not the inspired word of God. The evidence is there for anyone who approaches the subject from an objective unbiased position. You have to have an unwaveringly and stubborn desire for the truth and not some desperate need for self-preservation with a low price special. Can you proof the Norse creation myth as false?I can prove that the details of Genesis are not true. The details such as plants, animals and fowls are important. If the text has the details wrong it demonstrates no inspiration, beyond say the Navaho or Norse creation myth. Just what is your point? The OT God spends most of his time destroying things - yes so did Zeus. You are supporting the position that the vision of God of the OT is not much different then other visions of God at the time.The point which you missed or I didn't do a good job conveying it that it is *incongruous* and *inconsistent* that a being capable of creating galaxies and the intricacies of life would also become involved in regional partisan fights and even depicted as hurling stones on the enemy. God in the OT is viewed primarily as a military commander and a commander that is even sometimes outmatched. In Judges 1 God the military commander could not defeat some enemies... This is a vision of a superhero warrior God that can be matched by technology. You mentioned earlier about making God small - these petty depictions make god look small.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.Genesis 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman later as an after thought.Genesis 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit. Are you responding with a riddle or duplicity? The passage means something totally contrary to the plain meaning I am guessing we are about to learn. Break out the mental twister board and spin the dial.

Also you side stepped the great issue. The OT paints God almost humanly with the ability to: be cheered by wine, grow angry, be a man of war, have a change of heart, be challenged by a unified human race, etc.It is incongruent with a creator of the universe. This idea is off topic here and I would love to discuss it sometime in the future and maybe i will start a thread on this when I have time. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

But when your creative interpretations go way beyond the text you are corrupting the material. This is crux. I am somewhat taken back that you would actually admit to it. If you already want to believe something badly enough then with enough messaging the data, creative interpretations and unwarranted extrapolations a you can make reality whatever you want. This is madness. This is a very good way to fool yourself and mislead others.If you were born in a Muslim culture the probability is that you would have done the same presupposition with Koran and you would be now explaining to us how the Koran squares with science because this and that. I have read Muslim apologetics and they make the same unfounded claims. Critics? To the objective and the rational this looks like "making things up". Plausible is not a very precise term, especially when you allow for supernatural events. If you accept the supernatural what isn't plausible? From this perspective talking donkeys, the stopping of the sun, towers to heaven, world wide floods are all; unlikely, inconsistent, incongruent, disharmonious, but plausible.And what good is manipulating yourself to believe unlikely theories not based on any objective reality.

The order is contrary to the evidence that the fossil record, geological record and molecular biology demonstrate. In fact, they are contrary to the order of Genesis 1. Why would you trust a "scientific document" that contradicts itself in the first two chapters?It is a myth or poetry if you will. It reads just like other origin myths.Further Males were not created first! If anything from a modern biological perspective males can be redundant. Females of many organism forgo the male such as whiptail lizard. Males are expendable females are primary. No, I am saying they the Genesis account does not match up with the physical evidence.I really doubt you have objective and rationally "looked for proof that Genesis is false".