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 256 of 310 (409504)
07-09-2007 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Straggler
07-09-2007 5:44 PM


Re: Prediction Again
Biblical interpretations are nothing but after the event hindsight driven wishful thinking. Not a prediction in sight and no verification as a result.

But isn't there an interpretive analog to science in biblical interpretation? If the biblical accounts are true, shouldn't we find more and more evidence to this effect in other fields (archaeology in particular)?

This unfortunately has practical problems, as we've seen in this thread. "IAmJoseph" has posted a list of archaeological verifications. And "jar" has mentioned a number of conflicts. Unfortunately, the archaeological data can be interpreted subjectively so that each side thinks it is in their favor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2007 5:44 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 310 (409506)
07-09-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 9:47 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
This is a matter of opinion

I don't see what opinion has to do with it. Either the Bible is an objectively verified source of factual historical information, or its not. And it's not.

I don't see what possibility for discussion there is on this issue. There's no evidence that the Bible has any greater veracity than any other document for which we don't have the originals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 9:47 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 10:28 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

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


Message 258 of 310 (409508)
07-09-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by crashfrog
07-09-2007 10:12 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
I don't see what opinion has to do with it. Either the Bible is an objectively verified source of factual historical information, or its not. And it's not.

This is your subjective opinion (shared by many, BTW). But I claim that the Bible IS "an objectively verified source of factual historical information". (Check out the archaeological investigations of Sir William Ramsay, for example.)

But further discussion of this does not belong in this thread. This is not a discussion of HISTORY, but SCIENCE. Do you have any supposed scientific disproofs of the Bible to put forth?

Edited by kbertsche, : added wikipedia link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2007 10:12 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by nator, posted 07-10-2007 9:22 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

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


Message 259 of 310 (409509)
07-09-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 9:42 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
kbertsche writes:

If the biblical data does not support a biblical interpretation, the INTERPRETATION must be modified.

That's not the point of the thread though. What we're doing here is comparing real-world (scientific) observations and conclusions with the "Biblical data".

You can interpret the Biblical data all you want, but you're still obligated to interpret it independently of the real-world data. Where you've been accused of "making stuff up" it's because you are clearly warping your Biblical interpretation to fit the real-world data.

Come up with the best interpretation of the text based on the text and then see if it squares with the real world. Don't start with the preconceived notion that it will square.

Edited by Ringo, : Spellinge.


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 254 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 9:42 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 10:57 PM ringo has responded
 Message 263 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 1:02 AM ringo has not yet responded

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


Message 260 of 310 (409510)
07-09-2007 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by ringo
07-09-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
You can interpret the Biblical data all you want, but you're still obligated to interpret it independently of the real-world data. Where you've been accused of "making stuff up" it's because you are clearly warping your Biblical interpretation to fit the real-world data.

Come up with the best interprtation of the text based on the text and then see if it squares with the real world. Don't start with the preconceived notion that it will square.


Thanks for the clarification, now I see where you are coming from. I generally don't agree with your position, but in some ways it can be a useful approach (as in the "Framework interpretation").

There are at least three possible interpretive approaches:
1) interpret the text in isolation, then compare it with extra-biblical data (your approach)
2) interpret the text in harmony with extra-biblical data (my approach)
3) read modern understandings into the text (e.g. find predictions of modern scientific discoveries in the text). This is "eisegesis", and is rejected by any good biblical scholar. (You may have assumed that I fall into this category, but I don't. The original authors did not have some supernatural understanding of modern science.)

If the Bible is truly inspired by God, the things which it asserts should be in harmony with the rest of God's revelation, even though they are not expressed in modern scientific language. So biblical scholars generally try to include ALL of the data in doing biblical interpretation, both biblical and extra-biblical data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 10:33 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 11:08 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 301 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2007 5:18 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

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


Message 261 of 310 (409513)
07-09-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 10:57 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
kbertsche writes:

If the Bible is truly inspired by God, the things which it asserts should be in harmony with the rest of God's revelation, even though they are not expressed in modern scientific language.

That's the problem with your approach - presupposing where the harmony "should" be.

The honest scientific approach, as I have said, is to see if there is harmony. Only if the predicted harmony is really there can we conclude that it's "truly inspired by God".

2) interpret the text in harmony with extra-biblical data (my approach)

You can't just assume that the harmony is there.


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 260 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 10:57 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 12:51 AM ringo has responded
 Message 264 by kbertsche, posted 07-10-2007 1:10 AM ringo has responded

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


Message 262 of 310 (409520)
07-10-2007 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by ringo
07-09-2007 11:08 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
quote:
anastasia
That's the problem with your approach - presupposing where the harmony "should" be.

The honest scientific approach, as I have said, is to see if there is harmony. Only if the predicted harmony is really there can we conclude that it's "truly inspired by God".


The preamble is, without question, the text is aligned with creationism, and that this is an 'intergrated' document. This does not infer any presupposing - it is blatant with no other readings possible.

The issue of aligning with science, math and history thus will only be vindicated on this basis - and it has to, and it does. The problem is, not that it does not align with science, but that many view it first as a science in contradiction with creationism, and deem this encumbent. Many do not read it that way.

Creationism is not a myth but a legitimate non-disproven premise, and science does not contradict it. Science applies post-creation, as does math and history, and these are not applicable pre-creation, same as geography: what 'lands' will we measure here as evidence? The latter is not factored in. IOW, science, maths and history can only be vindicated post creation - and Genesis does not contradict these faculties of reasoning and evidence, on a post-creation premise.

One of the issues here is whether cross-specie or within-specia evolution is correct. Here, genesis is correct: the variance in the two is narrower than realised. Genesis uses the term 'kind' instead of species - which allows a far wider margin of life forms in a grouping than does darwin's species.

Consider that 'Everything that creepeth upon the earth', which measures 1000s of species as per darwin, become one sub-sector of a 'kind'; consider that all the animals too are one kind - namely canine, feline, etc does not apply, nor does any prototype of speech endowed humans. Genesis is thus mis-understood: it does not have to fit darwin's mode of categorising, but requires the reverse! We have to view from the lens of what Genesis is saying - the category is much larger when seen as all life forms divided into 5 groups, better four because mammals are a transitory sub-group, and a clear indication that cross-specie within these groups are 'allowed'!

Now consider genesis' very logical and intelligent mode of categorising: why would a big picture view allocate speech humans with animals, birds, amoeba and particles in a swamp millions of years ago? The latter does not cater to the fulcrum and unique difference of modern humans, nor do we see ourselves as one of millions of life forms without a unique distinquishing attribute: Genesis is thus far more insightful, and more correct. This does not mean darwin's categories are wrong or not useful, but they do not apply here, and genesis''kind' categories are more applicable in a creationism view: we are not discussing zoology or botany here!

The bottom line is, cross-speecies appear condoned by genesis when limited to the categories of 'kind' as per genesis, but not outside it. It is a narrow but critical difference, but it vindicates genesis why we do not see other life forms acquiring speech - a factor which contradicts darwin's adaptation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 11:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 1:32 AM IamJoseph has responded

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


Message 263 of 310 (409522)
07-10-2007 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by ringo
07-09-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
quote:

kbertsche writes:
If the biblical data does not support a biblical interpretation, the INTERPRETATION must be modified.

That's not the point of the thread though. What we're doing here is comparing real-world (scientific) observations and conclusions with the "Biblical data".


Modified may be a misplaced requirement here. Better, we consider that at one time, the earth was deemed flat, and this was not a wrong determination at the time. Science is subject to its status at any given time, and numerously altered, eg: Einstein upon Newton. Darwin's cross-species is not a fact - nor evidenced to any satisfactory levels - that is why it is a theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 10:33 PM ringo has not yet responded

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


Message 264 of 310 (409523)
07-10-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by ringo
07-09-2007 11:08 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
That's the problem with your approach - presupposing where the harmony "should" be.

The honest scientific approach, as I have said, is to see if there is harmony. Only if the predicted harmony is really there can we conclude that it's "truly inspired by God".

You can't just assume that the harmony is there.


Theological (and historical) studies are in many ways analogous to science, but also have important differences. They use different data and deal with data it in a different way. I'm sure you will disagree with him, but here's the view of a famous theologian:
B.B. Warfield writes:

. . . it is a first principle of historical science that any solution which affords a possible method of harmonizing any two statements is preferable to the assumption of inaccuracy or error—whether those statements are found in the same of different writers. To act on any other basis, it is clearly acknowledged, is to assume, not prove, error. (Warfield, Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 439)


Warfield expresses this more clearly than I have been doing. Most (or all?) of the attempts in this thread to show how science disproves the Bible do exactly what Warfield said; they ASSUME error rather than PROVE error.

Edited by kbertsche, : added wiki link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 11:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 1:28 AM kbertsche has responded

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


Message 265 of 310 (409526)
07-10-2007 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by kbertsche
07-10-2007 1:10 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
kbertsche writes:

Theological (and historical) studies are in many ways analogous to science, but also have important differences.

If we're going to discuss the scientific validity of the Bible, we have to use the stringent rules of science. (That's a given in the science forums, by the way.) Your - and Warfield's - idea of finding harmony in all things just won't wash here.

So, enough of this nonsense about "any apologetic pulled out of a hat will do". Okay?


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 264 by kbertsche, posted 07-10-2007 1:10 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by kbertsche, posted 07-10-2007 2:13 AM ringo has responded

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


Message 266 of 310 (409527)
07-10-2007 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by IamJoseph
07-10-2007 12:51 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
IamJoseph,

Could you learn to do quotes properly, please? Your gibberish is hard enough to follow without your attributing my quotes to the wrong people.

Put more time into your posts (and possibly some thought, too).

Edited by Ringo, : Punktuations?


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 262 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 12:51 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 3:07 AM ringo has not yet responded

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


Message 267 of 310 (409528)
07-10-2007 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 5:24 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
kbertsche writes:

Would you complain about someone who presupposes that a new piece of scientific data must square with reality?

kbertsche the very premise of science is that data and observation squares with reality.

You seem to think that the data must square with a theory - this is backwards and bad science and a poor method to discover truth.

kbertsche writes:

Would you say that trying to produce a theory which encompasses all of the data is "madness" and will "mislead others"?

You are using the term "data" very loosely. If you tried to produce a theory that encompasses astrology and astronomy that is indeed folly.

kbertsche writes:

Would you subject each new piece of data to a prolonged epistemological investigation?

Yes, yes and yes again. I work in a scientific environment and quantifying, calibrating and qualifying data is the primary concern.

Invalid data leads to invalid conclusions.

The quality of the Data is key. Myths and legends are not data (except from a historical or cultural perspective). Noah's flood story is not geological data nor is the description of the cyclopes in the Odyssey a zoological report.

kbertsche writes:

In biblical theology, the biblical text is the "data", analogous to scientific data.

Do you afford the holy Koran the same legitimacy? is the text of the Koran "data"? If not why not.

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 5:24 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by kbertsche, posted 07-10-2007 2:18 AM iceage has responded

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


Message 268 of 310 (409529)
07-10-2007 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by ringo
07-10-2007 1:28 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
If we're going to discuss the scientific validity of the Bible, we have to use the stringent rules of science. (That's a given in the science forums, by the way.) Your - and Warfield's - idea of finding harmony in all things just won't wash here.

But your approach simply doesn't work here. The OP asked about scientific disproofs of the Bible. But the Bible makes no scientific claims on its own; its statements are subject to interpretation. And this interpretive methodology is what we've been arguing about. The "stringent rules of science" cannot tell us how to interpret the Bible; this is not its area of expertise. So if we must be restricted to "the stringent rules of science" in this forum, we are stuck. Maybe this thread should be in a different forum?

The necessary sequence is:
1) interpret the biblical text (not using "the stringent rules of science")
2) subject this interpretation to "the stringent rules of science".

You insist on interpretations which ASSUME scientific error in the Bible. This is disingenuous and circular, and does not PROVE error. The more scientific approach is to assume the opposite (no error in the Bible) and see if this can be made consistent or if it leads to a contradiction. Or in non-scientific language, assume the Bible innocent until proven guilty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 1:28 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 2:36 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

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


Message 269 of 310 (409531)
07-10-2007 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by iceage
07-10-2007 2:02 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Yes, yes and yes again. I work in a scientific environment and quantifying, calibrating and qualifying data is the primary concern.

Invalid data leads to invalid conclusions.


Of course. But at some point you have the system calibrated and develop confidence in the data generation. From this point onward you do not subject each single data point to rigorous scrutiny as to its validity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 2:02 AM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 2:45 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15461
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 270 of 310 (409534)
07-10-2007 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by kbertsche
07-09-2007 9:42 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
quote:

You completely misread what I wrote! I violently agree with you that this is NOT the correct thing to do. If scientific data does not fit a scientific theory, the THEORY must be modified. If the biblical data does not support a biblical interpretation, the INTERPRETATION must be modified. In either case, the data must not be warped.

In that case you'e going to admit that the Bible has contradictions and therefore is not entirely reliable, are you ? And admit that the Book of Joshua does speak of the sun stopping in the sky ? Or is it the case that I read you correctly and that you really do want to warp the "data" to fit the "theory" proposed by theologians ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by kbertsche, posted 07-09-2007 9:42 PM kbertsche 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