Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
31 online now:
Diomedes, jar, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,957 Year: 18,993/19,786 Month: 1,413/1,705 Week: 219/446 Day: 17/98 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does science disprove the Bible?
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 226 of 310 (409373)
07-09-2007 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by iceage
07-08-2007 7:09 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
I wrote:
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).

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.

My statement was obviously misleading, as you and Ringo have noted. This statement did not logically start as a presupposition, but was a conclusion of previous investigations and only then became a presupposition or basis for future biblical studies. And there is always a possibility that the evidence will show such presuppositions to be incorrect in the future.

So I probably should have said we approach the text with the thought that it MAY be possible to square with other extra-biblical data, then we see if we can find plausible theories which encompass all of the data.

I was trying to make an analogy with science in this statement, and it didn't come across correctly. In science we try to account for all the data when formulating our theories. We do not allow ourselves to throw out or ignore data which doesn't fit; this would be irresponsible. In theology, the primary "data" is the biblical text. But history, geography, and science are also important as secondary data. A good, responsible biblical interpretation will account for all of this data. (It is possible in either field that some of the data is bogus, and this needs to be checked. But once we are comfortable that the data is correct, we need to account for it honestly instead of ignoring it or labeling it as bogus for convenience.)

Edited by kbertsche, : added clarification

Edited by kbertsche, : more clarification


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 7:09 PM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 1:30 AM kbertsche has responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4205 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 227 of 310 (409375)
07-09-2007 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by ICANT
07-08-2007 10:49 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
ICANT writes:

Everything in Genesis 2:4-4:26 took place the same day as it claims in Genesis 2:4. You say no way, that covers too many years.
Well there was no night created yet so there was only light. There was no time as there was nothing to mark time. So for a very long extended time there was only day.

This is just too weird. You have no evidence to support this claim other than the Bible and an inspired unique reading Genesis.

Consider this ICANT: Over several millennia, *no* revelation or discovery of the nature of the universe or reality has *ever* come from an inspired or literal reading of the bible. It is always after the revelation that the apologist get busy and find ways to make things work out and find "amazing" correlations.

The Bible's predictive record has been zero with respect to scientific knowledge. While science has gone on and discovered solar systems, galaxies, chemistry, relativity, DNA, gravity, etc. the bible has revealed nothing to even to the most *inspired* readers.

But now you want us to believe you have struck gold with a wild improbable theory with no absolutely no physical evidence!!!! No offense but can you see why I or others might be sceptical? Where others have failed you have scored.

Back to the real world. As far as the idea of a long long day goes, there is evidence that it is bunk.

There are coral diurnal rings dating back to dawn of life when the year had over 400 days. The same goes for tidal rhythmites, lunar rhythms are written into the rocks way back into time when no mammal or dinosaur walked the face of the earth. There are also ancient fossilized wood specimens with .... yearly rings that again date why back in time.

Keep in mind marking these geological time zones of tens of millions of years there are well defined geological periods where some life forms never ever mingle with other lifeforms in the geological record. For example, Trilobites are never found at the same level as dinosaurs, birds or mammals.

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 10:49 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by IamJoseph, posted 07-09-2007 1:51 AM iceage has not yet responded
 Message 231 by IamJoseph, posted 07-09-2007 2:14 AM iceage has responded
 Message 235 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2007 8:49 AM iceage has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17444
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 228 of 310 (409376)
07-09-2007 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 1:06 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
kBertsche writes:

In theology, the primary "data" is the biblical text. But history, geography, and science are also important as secondary data.

Precedence of data isn't really good science, is it? Does the Biblical text - or any "plausible" theory based on it - trump all history, geography and science?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 1:06 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by IamJoseph, posted 07-09-2007 2:00 AM ringo has not yet responded
 Message 232 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 2:16 AM ringo has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 229 of 310 (409377)
07-09-2007 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by iceage
07-09-2007 1:19 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
quote:
iceage

This is just too weird. You have no evidence to support this claim other than the Bible and an inspired unique reading Genesis.


Most debates of this nature become cyclical with nothing ever being resolved. The prime cause is selective reponsa, and before any issue is resolved either way, it is discarded and another issue is introduced: thus the cyclic result.

What should happen, and what is the correct methodology of debate, is not to be selective but contextual to the points debated. Before jumping to another issue, participants of either pursuation should comment on a point discussed: you should express clearly a for or against of items debated on the board. EG: if you make no comment whether the Israelites were in canaan as was debated here - it means you are running away from the issue, or else a silence is you condone it. Am I wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by iceage, posted 07-09-2007 1:19 AM iceage has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 230 of 310 (409378)
07-09-2007 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by ringo
07-09-2007 1:30 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
quote:
ringo

Does the Biblical text - or any "plausible" theory based on it - trump all history, geography and science?


Absolutely not. A biblical text must eventually become evidenced by science, history and math - more so than a non-bibllical text. This is because a biblical text is not talking about science and history, but is assuming a stance of 'truth' - while there is no way of determining truth other than those three avenues, plus the application of logic and reasoning. This means the aspect of 'belief' must be set aside in this instant.

Equally, one cannot determine a whole picture only by a dot on the page. The same applies to scientific theories which are not backed by surrounding evidences and what is not seen in our midst, or where agreeable alternate premises also apply: science is not vindicated where its positations are limited to academic and lab illustrations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 1:30 AM ringo has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 231 of 310 (409379)
07-09-2007 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by iceage
07-09-2007 1:19 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
quote:
iceage

Over several millennia, *no* revelation or discovery of the nature of the universe or reality has *ever* come from an inspired or literal reading of the bible. It is always after the revelation that the apologist get busy and find ways to make things work out and find "amazing" correlations.


Yes, its been a dark period as far as revelations go, and the few ancient ones are elusive and many come with second and third generation reportings which are again far removed from the actual spacetime being described. But maybe there is no requirement to reveal anything at this time? There is a command in the OT, very bold and almost arrogant, which says NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING. When we look around, what new insight did we get the past 3000 years not covered in that document? Which new entity gave the world a single new law not contained in the OT - can you name one? That we discovered the world is not flat - is not a contradiction of what was given or new: the OT does not say the world was flat. Give an example what new enlightenment you think should have been revealed - but was not? It is thus important to weight the scenario evenly - by considering the other side of your assumption. As of today, nothing is disproven - so a more sombre appraoch is correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by iceage, posted 07-09-2007 1:19 AM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by iceage, posted 07-09-2007 2:45 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 240 by Coragyps, posted 07-09-2007 10:39 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 232 of 310 (409380)
07-09-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by ringo
07-09-2007 1:30 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Precedence of data isn't really good science, is it? Does the Biblical text - or any "plausible" theory based on it - trump all history, geography and science?

No, of course not. (Good question, BTW.) By "primary" and "secondary" I do not imply "precedence". I meant that the main body of theological data comes from the Bible. Any good interpretation must account for ALL the data, both biblical and extra-biblical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 1:30 AM ringo has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4205 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 233 of 310 (409383)
07-09-2007 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by IamJoseph
07-09-2007 2:14 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
iceage writes:

Over several millennia, *no* revelation or discovery of the nature of the universe or reality has *ever* come from an inspired or literal reading of the bible. It is always after the revelation that the apologist get busy and find ways to make things work out and find "amazing" correlations.

IamJoseph writes:

Give an example what new enlightenment you think should have been revealed - but was not?

gravity, atomic and sub-atomic physics, chemistry, relativity, quantum theory, evolution, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, etc. the list is long.

Just in the off case that you are to respond that these concepts are not in contradiction with the Bible, note that nether is the Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Avesta, or any other ancient scripture.

Let me underscore the concept. No scientific discovery ever originated from the Bible. So why consider it to be a scientific document?

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by IamJoseph, posted 07-09-2007 2:14 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by IamJoseph, posted 07-09-2007 8:00 AM iceage has not yet responded
 Message 253 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 9:36 PM iceage has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 234 of 310 (409387)
07-09-2007 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by iceage
07-09-2007 2:45 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
quote:
iceage

Let me underscore the concept. No scientific discovery ever originated from the Bible. So why consider it to be a scientific document?


I dunno what a scientific document is - perhaps a book on science. But one can say, that the OT can be scientifically rationalised. This is not contradicted by miracles - it does happen to also be a theology. The science rationalisation is thus on its historicity. Here, there is a clear basis for science, which is not negated if sectors of science disagrees: it is still a science based premise; eg: the chronological listing of species, that a seed caters to repro, that humans emerged dual-gendered, the first recording of a cencus and contagious deseases, and the oldest and most accurate calendar in existence. Such depictions are normally well outside a theology, and today debated in 'scence' forums!

You mentioned gravity as an enlightenment. For sure this is advances in knowledge - and is exactly that: normal, garden variety accumulation of knowledge. Perhaps in the distant future humans will advance to unimaginable levels - like being able to move VIRGO to the left of SCORPIO: this is already catered to and is the real meaning behind GO - HAVE DOMINION OF ALL THE UNIVERSE. Gravity, MC2, Spearical planets, Telescopes, Penicilin and pi are advances of knowledge already anticipated and catered to - this need not cease to express new revelation. From a theological POV, new revelation would relate to what a theology does: new moral & spirtual guidelines. The latter has not occured.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by iceage, posted 07-09-2007 2:45 AM iceage has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 235 of 310 (409388)
07-09-2007 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by iceage
07-09-2007 1:19 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
This is just too weird. You have no evidence to support this claim other than the Bible and an inspired unique reading Genesis.

Almost as weird as the story about the singularity appearing from nothing and expanding into the universe.

I have the same evidence for my belief that I get from the Bible as there is for the weird story about the big band, or whatever you want to call it.

I have writings that infer it took place.
We are here.
It must have happened.

No offense but can you see why I or others might be sceptical?

I got no problem with you being skeptical iceage or anybody else.
Sometimes when I read what I have typed I think that guy is a stark raving mad maniac. It just sounds to impossible to be true.

But this is the only place I have ever been able to air these views and get feedback to make me think about what I believe. Everywhere else I have mentioned them in the past 47 years they just say something like preposterous or nutty old man.

iceage I believe the Bible and I try to understand what it says not what I want it to say or what someone tells me it says.

What I believe about the creation as I understand Genesis 1:1 is not now refuted by science.

the bible has revealed nothing to even to the most *inspired* readers.

I always had this stupid idea that the Bible had some revelations in it. Like:

Levi 17:11 (KJV) For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

This is a fact that science did not discover until about 400 years ago.

Then again maybe I am mistaken.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by iceage, posted 07-09-2007 1:19 AM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2007 9:30 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 237 by Modulous, posted 07-09-2007 9:45 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 241 by Coragyps, posted 07-09-2007 10:45 AM ICANT has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 236 of 310 (409393)
07-09-2007 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by ICANT
07-09-2007 8:49 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Levi 17:11 (KJV) For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

This is a fact that science did not discover until about 400 years ago.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2007 8:49 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 237 of 310 (409395)
07-09-2007 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by ICANT
07-09-2007 8:49 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Almost as weird as the story about the singularity appearing from nothing and expanding into the universe.

I've never heard about a singularity appearing from nothing, sounds equally impossible to me though. The Big Bang model on the other hand says nothing of the sort.

I have writings that infer it took place.

We have writings about a lot of things occurring, not all of them did. The first warning sign is that nobody witnessed the creation so no documentary evidence exists. Only alleged secondary sources exist (the guy that did it told me, and now I'm telling you...).

We are here.
It must have happened.

We are here, so something must have happened. What 'it' is is another issue entirely. I can assure you that it probably wasn't worked out by people 3500 years ago who managed to get it written down. If I'm going to trust a written source of the creation, logic would lead us to believe the oldest existing one as being the most contemporary and thus most accurate. Genesis is not the oldest creation story.

Levi 17:11 (KJV) For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

This is a fact that science did not discover until about 400 years ago.

It is not a fact, its complete gobbledegook. The life of the flesh is the blood? What does that mean? Surely the 'life' of the flesh is the metabolic processes? Sure, the blood assists by transporting needed chemicals and gasses around but the 'life of the flesh'? This is far from a scientific discovery. This sounds like a bunch of intelligent but tragically ignorant people who observed that people could die by bleeding to death and thus concluded that blood keeps you alive. Those same people then described this phenomenon in a poetic sense and tied it into sacrifice and food preparation.

Hardly a divine revelation, its just rudimentary observational science. They certainly weren't the first people to observe the connection between staying alive and keeping the blood on the inside. The Egyptians even had anatomical studies and surgical instructions written down. Should we worship Ra now, because it was his high priest, Imhotep that did this?

The rest of the words in the verse are even more nonsense and I don't think science has ever discovered that blood makes atonement for the soul.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2007 8:49 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 5:11 AM Modulous has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 238 of 310 (409397)
07-09-2007 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by ICANT
07-08-2007 3:31 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
iceage if you or anyone else on this site has any proof that Genesis 1:1 is false please present it now.

There is absolutely no proof Genesis 1:1 is not true.

It has nothing to do with plants, animals, fowl, fishes or man.

It states: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

You declared it to be false now, prove it to be scientifically false.

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

Sounds like there is only one way and you had better find the right one.

لا إله إلاَّ الله و محمد رسول الله


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2007 3:31 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2007 3:37 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
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 responded

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

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 240 of 310 (409401)
07-09-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by IamJoseph
07-09-2007 2:14 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Which new entity gave the world a single new law not contained in the OT

You're yanking our chain, right?

Are there no automobiles where you live? No air pollution? No chemicals classified as Dangerous Goods? Where does the OT mention air piracy? Or even sea piracy?

Get real, Joe. You're just being silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by IamJoseph, posted 07-09-2007 2:14 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019