How does science disprove the Bible?

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!

I also believe in Evolution. Yet I believe in God, a Creator God, so am I a creationist? Yes, but I'm not a “biblical creationist”.It’s plainly clear that many statements in the Bible are contradictory or downright false. I find it unfortunate that those of us who are religious are often assumed to be bible thumping literalists. Fundamentalism is the scourge of the faithful majority. That’s true in any religion.It’s particularly distasteful when a vocal minority pushes "creation science" or "Intelligent Design” as legitimate alternatives to true science. Their goal is to put God under a microscope to legitimize religion through science. It’s really just a meager attempt to get the Bible in the classroom where it doesn’t belong.

I'm one of those folk who might be classified as a Theistic Evolutionist.I am a Christian, a more than average active Christian. I believe in the Bible. I also am positive that Abiogenesis happened, that evolution happened, that so far the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have on how Evolution happened.My position is not all that unusual, you will find other Christians here that hold similar positions and there is even A Catechism of Creation on line.To give you an idea of how the issue is viewed by many Christians, Clergy and Churches, you might want to check out the Clergy Project which is an open letter currently signed by more than 10,000 US Christian Clergy.As the letter states: Science only disproves the Bible if the God that the person created is small and limited. Science only disproves the Bible if a person has made the Bible something to be worshiped.For the rest of us, Science is but a way to discover "How God did it."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This isn't exactly a way of disproving specific things in the Bible, Dragoness, but it's an approach you could take with your husband.Tell him that you know that there will be no mention of four of the world's seven continents in the Bible. There will be no mention of any of the animals or plants that are particular to any of those four continents. Then tell him that you know this without even reading the Bible cover to cover. Challenge him to find anything in it to show that you're wrong.The Bible, like all books, is limited to the knowledge of the people writing it, and, if fiction is involved, to the extent of their imaginations.People in the Middle-East between 2 and 4 thousand years ago had no idea that the continents of North and South America, Australia and Antartica existed, so you can be sure of being right.So, no racoons, opossums, sloths or kangaroos, but plenty of stuff from the conjoined land masses of Asia, Africa and Europe.This is not scientific proof against the Bible, merely very strong evidence that it was written by ordinary human beings with, relative to us, very little knowledge of the world they lived in. There is no evidence of the influence of an all seeing, all knowing God being involved in its authorship in any way. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Let's start with a basic fact about science. Science doesn't prove anything, if by proof we mean irrefutable evidence to be accepted for all time that something is or is not true. All of science is tentative. Nothing is ever 100%. Science can no more disprove anything in the bible than it can disprove that the Universe was created last Thursday by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Science proceeds by observing the Universe, making tentative generalizations about how or why something is the way we observe it to be, then testing those generalizations by further observations. If futher observations tend to suggest that the generalizations are accurate, those generalizations rise to the level of theories that are generally accepted as being an accurate reflection of reality. However, a theory is never proven in science. Further observations might undermine the accuracy of the theory. Or, someone may come up with a different generalization for the observations we make that explains things better than the old one.Now, what science can do is tell us when the observations that we see lead us to conclusions that are inconsistent with some conclusions that some people have made about the bible. For example, some people have concluded that the bible says the world was created some 6,000 years ago. Evidence from multiple areas of science contradicts that conclusion. You can search many different threads here to find copious examples of this evidence. Some people have concluded that the bible says there was a worldwide flood in the past that killed all life on the planet save the organisms on one single boat. Again, scientific evidence in many fields contradicts the literal accuracy of this story.Of course, for most christians worldwide, the parts of the bible that science can even address are not the important parts. The bible says god created us in his image. Science is mute on that point, but demonstrates that all the evidence we see tells us that if that did happen, god accomplished this by the evolution of life. The bible tells us how we should live our lives and how we should treat one another. Science says nothing about those parts of the bible. Some believe that the bible says if you don't believe in the right diety and worship that diety in the right way, that you will spend eternity in hell. Science tells us that there is no evidence for the actual existence of such a physical location on the Earth, but doesn't otherwise speak to that claim.To those who insist that the bible is an inerrant and literally correct description of the history of the planet, science provides abundant evidence to the contrary. For the majority of those who do not confine the bible to such a narrow reading but instead look to it for deeper, more meaningful truths, science simply does not apply.{ABE}If your husband is taking the position that there never will be any scientific evidence against anything in the bible, he's pretty much disqualifying himself from the discussion right off the bat. Science cannot and will not ever say that anything will never be. As I described above, science is wholly dependant on our observations. If more evidence comes in on a particular matter, science will evaluate that evidence and, if necessary, revise previous tentatively held conclusions.If your husband wants to accept as an axiom of faith that science cannot "disprove" anything in the bible, there's little that anyone here can do about it, or to help you convince him otherwise. There are some here who would argue with his axiom, but they would do so on theological grounds, not scientific ones.There are no lengths to which a committed creationist won't go to dismiss scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs. A perfect example of this can be found in this thread. In order to have any kind of productive dialogue with your husband in this area, your first task will be to get him to understand and recognize that his attitude about what science does is seriously flawed. Unless and until you can do that, I suspect your conversations will eventually deteriorate into a series of "Is to"s and "Is not"s.Edited by subbie, : Further thoughts

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

In the six-hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. Genesis 7:11

---

We also know that the Bronze Age Middle Eastern cosmology is incorrect: the earth does not float on a huge ocean, and the sky is not a dome holding back water in the heavens.

quote:

---

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to live in....
Isaiah 40:22

---

We also know that the earth is not a flat disk covered by a solid sky.-But it isn't science that disproves the Bible, but common sense. Check out the four different accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb at the end of the four Gospels; for a recent event observed by still living witnesses, and the most important historical event in human history to boot, and being inspired by the Holy Ghostwriter, it seems remarkable that the Gospellers couldn't get the basic facts straight, giving different details about who it was who visited the tomb and what they saw there.And don't forget the different versions of Judas' death in Matthew 27:5 and Luke 1:18. So much for literal inerrancy.-And let's not forget the dodgy theology. God creates humans, knowing full well that he is going to end up damning the majority to eternal torment. Adam and Eve disobey, and somehow that means all humans have an automatic ticket to Hell. It is part of human nature ot sin, yet somehow that makes each human guilty. Somehow, omnipotent God cannot abide by this "sin" stuff, no matter how trivial. Finally, the only way God can figure out a way out of the mess he himself created is to incarnate himself as a human being and be painfully executed as a common criminal -- and people who believe in this somehow get these "sins" forgiven. Does any of this make even one lick of sense?It's alright if you dig on weird metaphysics, I guess, but, like New Agers, I can't figure out why these people don't see how silly they seem.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

The term "literally" is such a loaded term. I take the bible literally in a historical, grammatical, and rhetorical meaning. Just because there are analogies, metaphors, ect does not mean it is not historical. I see no contradictions in the first few chapters of Genesis.I think the literal meaning of the Serpent is the fact of a created being called Satan - not a snake. Thats taking it literal with a different meaning. It really comes down to understanding the historical and grammatical context of the Bible.Just to point out when talking about the ~6000 yrs ago date - that could really be from the Fall not creation. The time periods come into play in ch. 5. You will notice a contrast in 5:1-3 in Adam being created in Gods image and then when he statrs to age (hence the fall) he starts to beget in his own likeness (fallen state). The time period between creation and fall is not known. Also Ch.5:1-2 (intro to a new history) talk about Mankind (day six) and then transitions to the individual person Adam. It does not say that Adam lived 130 yrs after he was created - that would imply aging from the start - but 130 since the fall and then he started to beget in his own image. This section begins the history after the fall.Although I would not try to cram evolution into that period - that was an unfallen state.Edited by shiloh, : No reason given.

Except of course, the Bible has been shown to be factually incorrect historically. There never was a world-wide flood, no conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua, no Exodus as described in the Bible. Except of course, there is no Biblical support for "The Fall" or any fallen nature.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

(1) Define "kind" for us.(2) Hybernation? Lions don't hybernate for a year. Dogs don't hybernate for a year. Birds don't hybernate for a year. Heck, even bears don't hybernate for a year.(3) Do you have any idea how much room it takes to store enough food for that many animal for a year?(4) They may have eaten one of the pairs? We're talking about a whole year here. Why don't you do an experiment for us. Don't eat anything except a pair of animal of your choosing for a year and see how you'll survive.(5) No problem for god? In other words, magic, right? Might as well throw up your hands and stop trying to find answer for anything. Goddunit ought to explain just about everything. Hey, why don't you send in a paper with your "goddunit" theory and have it peer reviewed? I'd like to see the wonderful inventions and scientific discoveries with your "goddunit" theory. I can think of 3 logical fallacies you just committed here. Poisoning the well, red herring, and ad hominem. Notice how you didn't address the light problem I presented at all. You just presented a strawman argument against BB.So, let me ask again. If the universe is only 6,000 years old, how come we can see stars tens of thousands of light years away? Would you then agree that the Bible is not a science text book? Why then do we have to treat biblical creationism as literal? Funny how you just told me to practice my literary skills and then turned around and misread what I said. Permit me to quote myself.

quote:

---

Just so you know, the wind direction is predominantly east and west, not north and south.

---

I said predominantly east and west, I didn't say only east and west. Why? Surprise surprise, because of the rotation of the Earth. Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Acts 1:18Edited 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!

1. The point about "kind" was to show that equating it with species as you did is erroneous and therefore does not help your point. Without getting into a detailed explanation I brought up the term "kind" to make the point that it represents a broader catagory than species therby reducing the numbers of animals on the Ark. I hope you realize that there are examples of hybridization even within the genus and some in the family category.2. Hybernation was one small specific point that I brought up not a general answer for your so called problems.3. For your points three and four - YES - and these have been answered sufficiently. Here is one book you can read which deals with these issues. "NOAH'S ARK: A Feasibility study" by John Woodmorappe ISBN 0-932766-41-24. By bringing up God I was not trying to relegate the answers to your points by just invoking God but only to say even if there were no answers or unanswered questions does not establish your points. Futhermore, why should we remove Gods hand in this event? If He does exist then surely as the Bible intimates He was in it. It is only for the purpose of trying to find some total materialistic explanation the requires us to do so and since I understand that this is your point this is why I stated it last.5. Reguarding the 3 logical fallicies you should have read my post more carefully. None apply to this point becauseA) I was not trying to dismiss nor answer the "problem of light" by pointing out the horizon problem. I simply acknowledged the problem and wanted to point out that both sides have problems of there own.B) Since this issue is complex I just hinted at some possible points -Other models to account for the light problem, problems with dating, and issues reguarding binary star systems. The key to the past is not necessarily the present. Furthermore you just stated the problem you did not explain it. See: Humphreys, D. R., Starlight and Time, 1994, Master Books, Colorado Springs, Co. although not without its problems; neither are the Big Bang models. The main point is time dialation factors come into play within various models , these are real effects that have not been completely understod. For Christian contray oppinion see 404- Not FoundAlso see, RATE | The Institute for Creation Research reguarding dating issues. Reguarding binary star issues Iam running late but here are two scientist with articles you can scan over ICR Research | The Institute for Creation Research and ICR Research | The Institute for Creation ResearchAlso, Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research
404- Not Found (about the flood)
404- Not Found (about time-dialation)
404- Not Found (Mathematical philosohy and evolution)
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9903110 (another model for your reading pleasure)So seems like both sides have there problems. That was my point. Just stateing somthing does not prove it nor not being able to give an answer.6. I knew what you said about wind direction but what was the point if just "predominately" that does not help in saying the bible is in error at that verse. Why even use it as one of your points.Have fun reading if you dare. Edited by shiloh, : left out "not" in #6

There may have been those who have tried to show that the bible is factually incorrect but you did not do so.What are your reasons for no biblical support of the fall. This term is really not a specific theological term so I am might just agree with you - but what did happen to man after he sinned and what are the consequences according to the bible.

Man this is such an old supposed contradiction - heck it has probably been answered a million times.There is no contradiction and the different versions can be reconciled in this way Judas hung himself (possibly on a tree branch over a ledge) and then later falling after a couple days of rot and hitting the ground a splitting open.Matt. notes the first part; Luke (of course being a doctor) points out the guts point of view.Alot of the "different accounts" fall into this category.This is what is beautiful about the bible it does not try to "get together and corrobate for the sake of establishing a false story" but their are eyewitness acounts from individuals who tell there story without addressing every freakin deatail. There are often different accounts of the same event in court testomonies that are not necessarily contradictory.

First we would have to determine what the first sin was. Adam and Eve didn't sin, they were incapable of sinning until after they had eaten of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.That certainly is not a Fall, rather a step up as God Himself admits.The punishments for eating the forbidden fruit were a curse on snakes that women would be afraid of them and hate them and kill them, that childbirth would be harder for humans than it seemed to be for other animals and that men would have to work for their food instead of foraging.These are all classic "Just So Stories" and were used to explain why we fear snakes, why it seemed childbirth was harder for us than the other animals and why we had to till the soil instead of living the more nomadic, foraging lifestyle.It is most likely that these are very old stories, perhaps even dating back to the transition from Nomadic culture to the more sedentary lifestyle of Village and farm life.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I thought you had reasons more substantial than these.God gave Adam a command with the consequences of disobeying that command. Even if eating of the tree of knowledge was a step up it was at the expense of disobediance to the will of God and therefore had consequenses (The Fall or whatever term you want use). Adam and Eve intruded into a sphere God did not authorize them to do so. Since man is a contingent being mortality was the result - seperation from the immortal life of God - hence the need for a Savior - the seed of the Woman Jesus Christ.As for the snake curse did you not read the earlier posts. Your take on this is funny.As far as your other points those are unsubstantiated claims.