How does science disprove the Bible?

But that is not what Genesis literally says.What Genesis literally says is "serpent". Genesis does not literally say "the dragon that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan".And surely the curse which God puts on the snake makes it clear that it is a literal snake:"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

​

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, scientists have proved that Genesis, if interpreted literally, is a pile of pants; but of course you can always interpret the Bible non-literally to make it consonant with reality.

I'm not sure it can, but my point was less ambitious: to point out that Genesis does not literally say that it's Satan, this is an interpretation of the text. Well, what can I say, yes it does. An allegorical story, even about something that actually happened, is not a historical fact. The Greek fable of Persephone, for example, is about the changing of the seasons, and the seasons really do change, but this is not to say that Pluton really did abduct Persephone and feed her a magic pomegranate. Yes, what of it? I quoted it correctly, didn't I? Woe is me, I have been judged and found wanting by ... some guy on the internet.It's not the first time this has happened.No hope for me, eh? Alackaday, rue!

But the texts do not say that.

No they don't.Not only do they not say that, but the very opposite is implied by Genesis 2, which relates the position of Eden to other terrestrial locations, e.g. Ethiopia and Assyria.And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

IamJoseph: nothing you say means anything, because you are talking in a language which you made up in your head.

No it doesn't. The facts. Whereas the book of Genesis has been shown to be false, them's the breaks.By the way, you might want a look at the Sumerian King List. Much of it has been verified. But the early part, where people live hundreds of years and there's a magic flood --- well, that bit's a myth. Links please? And I would remind you that this is a totally fictitious statement which you've made up. Some names, yes. All of them? No.

Unless you believe that pesky lying Bible:And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1)Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. (Job 1:6)And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? (Zechariah 3:2)

I'm sure that saying this makes you feel better, but doesn't it worry you that it's completely untrue? Science has not validated your premise; if it has, scientists would have noticed. Also, if this validation existed, you would be able to point it out to me, 'cos it would be written down somewhere.

No he hasn't. If he had provided the answer, then you would know what it was.He has claimed to have an answer. Creationists claim a lot of things.

But the interpretation does not come "straightforwardly". For hundreds of years, people thought it meant "stood still". No-one even tried to read it any other way until physicists found there was a problem.Tell me this: if our knowledge of the Solar System was still geocentric, do you suppose you'd really be explaining that since the words "stood still" are derived from a word meaning "was silent" they must actually mean "shone less brightly"?

What "fact" in that passage from Leviticus do you claim was confirmed by science 400 years ago?

Very well. Science shows that the Earth is billions of years younger than the universe. Hence, God did not create it "in the beginning". ’‘ ‘’’ ‘’‘’’‘ ‘’’’ ’ ’‘’‘ ‘‘’’ ‘’’’

Because he didn't.Let's all remind ourselves of the garbage you're trying to attribute to Stephen Hawking.You wrote, in message 113: Of course, he said nothing of the sort, and to say so would be a libel on his professional competence if only you could find someone dumb enough to believe you.