Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does science disprove the Bible?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 41 of 310 (407997)
06-29-2007 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jon
06-24-2007 1:40 PM


Differences
The Bible and science are two separate things.
That is fine. Except that religion does continually insist on making claims, whether directly or more subtly, about the physical world.
Whether that be relating to the creation of the universe, the formation of life, the everlasting soul, the nature of morality or anything else that is most reliably explored by means of the scientific method.
Why, in modern times, is it felt necessary to include the views of a theologian in a debate regarding cloning and genetic engineering, the beginnings of the universe or the nature of artificial intelligence??
What possible expertise can a theologian bring to any of these topics?
Until the views of theologians regarding such questions have no more merit given to them than those of a chef, mechanic or taxi driver it is not true to say that science and religion have no common ground over which the two will come into conflict.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 06-24-2007 1:40 PM Jon has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 204 of 310 (409338)
07-08-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by kbertsche
07-08-2007 5:49 PM


Prediction
But this is not the only possible view. If one approaches the text with the presupposition that it DOES square with reality (historical, geographical, and scientific), he will find that plausible theories exist which will accomodate all of the data (biblical as well as extra-biblical). To the critics, this will look like we are "making things up".
Making an interpretation fit the known facts (whether they be historical or scientific) is a relatively easy and wholly subjective exercise.
However making new facts of nature fit your interpretation is a much harder and better test of any theory.
Hence the reliance of science on prediction as the best means of evaluating theories.
It should be noted that science has made many verified predictions regarding the nature life the universe and everything. It is on these predictions that the foundtions of our current knowledge now lie.
Nobody has ever predicted anything, never mind anything specific and measuarable, using the bible that was not a subjective interpretation post the event in question.
Science has proven the bible wrong countless times but with the hindsight and knowledge of science and history it will always be possible to re-interpret biblical poetry such that it fits the known facts. This no more validates the bible than it does astrological mumbo jumbo published in the daily papers or the ramblings of Nostradamus.
Interpreting biblical poetry to fit scientific facts is effectively a recognition that the scientific method is the best means of investigating nature and that the bible and everything else rates as a very poor substitute for physical, objective and corroborated evidence that has predictiv reasoning at it's heart.
Stay happy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by kbertsche, posted 07-08-2007 5:49 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 9:24 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 239 of 310 (409398)
07-09-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by ICANT
07-08-2007 9:24 PM


Re: Prediction
Straggler, I predict according to the Bible that if you die without accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you will bow at His feet one day and confess that He is Lord.
A typically objectively verifiable testable prediction I see......
Does it really really not matter to you that phenomenon predicted by science as a logical consequence of theory have been totally vindicated whilst no biblical creationist has ever made a verifiable prediction about anything that was not subject to interpretation post the event?
Do you understand why science uses prediction as a test of theory?
Do you not a agree that in a head to head as to which of two theories is better the one that can accurately predict new phenomenon is by far the superior theory?
Your attempts to dismiss this are nothing more than burying your head in the sand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 9:24 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 3:15 AM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 250 of 310 (409481)
07-09-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 5:24 PM


Prediction Again
Would you say the same thing about science, I wonder?
Making theories and interpretations fit facts is relatively easy and very subjective way of convincing yourself of almost anything you want.
Prediction is the hallmark of a good theory as it is all but imposible to make new facts fit dogmatic theories.
Science tests it's theories against prediction, refutation and verification.
BB and ToE have been indisputably verified due to this.
Biblical interpretations are nothing but after the event hindsight driven wishful thinking. Not a prediction in sight and no verification as a result.
So to answer your question, no, science is not in the same position as biblical interpretation as regards new data.

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 256 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 9:58 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 292 of 310 (409603)
07-10-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by IamJoseph
07-10-2007 5:50 AM


There is no alternative to Creationism. Call me when one is found - I won't argue against it if it is real.
You already are.
How can we ask what cam ebefore the BB if time was created at the BB? Before has no meaning without time.
If BB is false how was the specific measurable Cosmic Background Radiation predicted so accurately from this theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 5:50 AM IamJoseph 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