Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does science disprove the Bible?
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 14 of 310 (406972)
06-23-2007 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by WS-JW
06-23-2007 2:32 AM


This may lead the thread off topic, but if need be either WS-JW or I will 'take it outside'.
WS-JW writes:
Did he tell you that under the bottom skin of a snake there are tiny tiny legs? written up in it's genetic code, that do no good to the snake? But why? natural selection some how thinks and keeps the good parts and disregards the bad parts? some unexplainable evolution? or the fact that when God told the devil in the form of snake that he would crawl on his belly he lost his legs?
The bible never says the snake had legs. The bible says that the snake was punished as follows:
quote:
Gen 3:14 "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:"
For all we know, the snake could have had wings.
Plus, if the snake didn't have rudimentary legs, would that disprove the Bible? If the snake had rudimentary wings, would that disprove the Bible? Nope, creationists can accept any outcome as proof of the bible.
Evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, predict that snakes evolved from walking reptiles, and thus will retain some of the characters of their predecessors. If snakes had rudimentary wings, this would be a damaging blow to the evolutionary history of Squamates.
Edited by Doddy, : bbcode

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by WS-JW, posted 06-23-2007 2:32 AM WS-JW has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by shiloh, posted 06-23-2007 5:21 AM Doddy has replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 16 of 310 (406978)
06-23-2007 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by shiloh
06-23-2007 5:21 AM


shiloh writes:
do you think the people hearing these words or reading them understood it to be an aniaml (snake)
Maybe they did, I don't know. Certainly there are many today who still think this, because they like to read literally. But in fact, the entire first few chapters of Genesis can't be read like that, because they just don't make any sense if you do.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by shiloh, posted 06-23-2007 5:21 AM shiloh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by shiloh, posted 06-23-2007 1:15 PM Doddy has not replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 25 of 310 (407045)
06-23-2007 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Chiroptera
06-23-2007 12:38 PM


Chiroptera writes:
And don't forget the different versions of Judas' death in Matthew 27:5 and Luke 1:18. So much for literal inerrancy.
Acts 1:18
Edited by Doddy, : No reason given.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 06-23-2007 12:38 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by shiloh, posted 06-24-2007 12:32 AM Doddy has not replied
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 06-24-2007 9:56 AM Doddy has not replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 52 of 310 (408703)
07-04-2007 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Jon
07-04-2007 6:19 AM


Jon writes:
We cannot disprove Y.
If Y = the existence of an absolute disproof of Y
Thus,
"We cannot disprove the existence of an absolute disproof of Y."
Which, to me, simplifies to (given that if a disproof of Y exists, we can disprove Y):
"We cannot disprove that we can disprove Y."
Which essentially means that your initial statement is unfounded by the conclusions of that self-same statement.
Edited by Doddy, : fixed logic

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Jon, posted 07-04-2007 6:19 AM Jon has not replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 67 of 310 (408907)
07-05-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by IamJoseph
07-05-2007 11:29 AM


Re: Except of course ...
IamJoseph writes:
The text says this garden was not located on physical earth.
Let us consider the scripture for a moment. Genesis 2:8-14 (KJV)
quote:
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
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.
Now consider the signs that this was on earth. There is an easterly direction, which indicates it was on a planet. Also, earthly rivers are mentioned to flow out from Eden. Don't these seem to indicate that the garden was supposed to be on earth, considering the chapter is about the creation of the earth?
Added by edit: Actually, never mind. I see above you have refuted my claim with the utmost clarity.
IamJoseph writes:
The historical references relate to earth when adam is represented as a name, outside of the paradisical garden, which is not on earth
It's all clear to me now. When Adam is a name, rather than a person, you can have an easterly direction and refer to other nations! But if those verses above, none of which actually mention Adam by name, refer to the garden, then the whole thing doesn't make any sense at all!
Edited by Doddy, : abe (+ sarcasm)

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by IamJoseph, posted 07-05-2007 11:29 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 92 of 310 (409056)
07-07-2007 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by sidelined
07-06-2007 11:05 PM


sidelined writes:
This is planetary destruction unlike anything ever described before.
No, because magic man (aka God) performed it as a miracle, so Newton's laws of motion did not apply. If they did apply, it wouldn't be a miracle.
This is why science can't disprove the Bible, because the Bible appeals to the supernatural - a topic on which science can't make comments.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by sidelined, posted 07-06-2007 11:05 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 07-07-2007 2:55 AM Doddy has not replied
 Message 105 by sidelined, posted 07-07-2007 9:40 AM Doddy has replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 93 of 310 (409058)
07-07-2007 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by IamJoseph
07-06-2007 10:26 PM


Re: It is time you actually start supporting your idiotic comments.
IamJoseph writes:
Humans were not yet created - the heavens were: who does 'US' refer to?
Well, it could be that God was talking to his angels (for example, his assistant Larry). It could also be that God was conspiring with Satan to make the earth (thus explaining all the volcanoes, earthquakes, viruses etc). It could also be that God is more than one person (i.e. the Trinity), and so when He talks to himself He has to use plural form.
Lastly, and this is what I would say, He is only a single being, but is using plural as a figure of speech. As in "Let's (a contraction of 'Let us') just have some light so I can see what I'm doing....Let there be light!".
Edited by Doddy, : capitalise pronouns for magic man

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by IamJoseph, posted 07-06-2007 10:26 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by anastasia, posted 07-07-2007 1:38 AM Doddy has not replied
 Message 95 by IamJoseph, posted 07-07-2007 2:39 AM Doddy has not replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 168 of 310 (409241)
07-08-2007 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by sidelined
07-07-2007 9:40 AM


sidelined writes:
When you hear the sound of hoofbeats think horses before zebras.
Yes, but it doesn't disprove zebras though, does it?

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by sidelined, posted 07-07-2007 9:40 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by sidelined, posted 07-08-2007 8:22 AM Doddy has replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 205 of 310 (409345)
07-08-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by sidelined
07-08-2007 8:22 AM


sidelined writes:
Of course it does not. It merely points out that one should focus on the ordinary first to eliminate the mundane answers first since they are the most likely source. We check out the known and mundane first as an answer before we check out the exotic unknown.
Which means that, as I said, science then doesn't disprove the Bible, it just offers more parsimonious explanations for some things (that the Bible wasn't true but is a myth).
However, for a Bible-believer, this is no big deal because they know it was a miracle anyway, and thus outside of the laws of science and parsimony.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by sidelined, posted 07-08-2007 8:22 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by anastasia, posted 07-08-2007 9:46 PM Doddy 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