How does science disprove the Bible?

That is called "getting rid of conflicts by the Theology of anything I can make up".Look at the whole passage and show where it suggests it was limited in scope?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Of course not. To do so would demonstrate understanding well beyond the time. Yes maybe just a local refraction of light. However, if God is going to suspend the laws of physics why not just suspend those related to mass and momentum and actually stop the earth. One is not any more miraculous than the other. Why do apologetics search for the lowest energy solution? Is this mythical caricature vision of God not powerful enough. The point is the passage in in concordance to what was believed at the time (ie the earth is flat and stationary). It does not correspond to a modern heliocentric solar system, it is in conflict.What about Joshua's long day. It says the Sun and Moon stopped. Do you believe like ICANT that was just God providing his light? Do you believe that God hurled (hail)stones from some mezzanine in heaven to help out?This also is not only conflict with science but is in conflict with reason.

Not just stopped, but each stopped over spots less than ten miles apart: A pretty primitive cosmology, indeed.

I dunno, guys. Once one accepts an omnipotent god performing miracles, I don't see how this part is unreasonable. Well, I admit, it does seem strange to me that an omnipotent god would play optical illusion tricks rather than just stopping the spinning earth, but what do I know about omnipotent gods when they choose their favorite tribes?This is nothing like the story of Judas who, while walking in field, had his guts burst open alien-like, and then, as he fell off a ravine, the tatters of his clothing (torn by the bursting guts) tangled around his neck and caught on a ledge, strangling him. Or whatever the literalist apologists would have you believe. Now that is some major spinnin'!

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

1) "Miraculous sign" in v. 31 is "mofet". The only other place in the near context that this noun is used is in v. 24: We know from 2 Kings 20:8-11 and Is 38:8 that this "sign" was the shadow moving backwards. So this is apparently the "sign" that the envoys were sent to find out about in v. 31.2) According to v. 31 this occurred in "the land" (Hebrew "'eretz"). This word is most commonly used for the "Land of Israel" or "Palestine". (The word is not ALWAYS so restrictive. But in a context of discussing a king of Israel, the Land of Israel is probably what is in mind.)Thus, the text suggests that this event was limited to the land of Israel.
DeYoung and Whitcomb (who are much more literalistic than I am) actually suggest that it was limited only to Hezekiah's courtyard.

Yup, like I said, "Theology of getting rid of conflicts by believing anything that can be made up."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There is a large amount of evidence for fish and plankton being able to survive salinity changes. Let me suggest the following two pages from both the creationist and the evolutionist side of the discussion.http://www.creationontheweb.com/...pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/02/060219195841.htm But parallax assumes that the star has not moved in relation to the earth during the six months that it takes to make the two measurements. Let me point out that I'm not denying the given distances; I'm just commenting on the fact that they are not definite. The evidence that I presented was in explanation of the apparent length of time necessary for light to travel those distances. Allow me to give you a direct quote from the book.

quote:

---

Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would indeed be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

---

Again, let me provide you with a direct quote.

quote:

---

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

---

Note that the phrase is "circle of the earth" not "the earth is a circle."

A minority of species, yes. Many die immediately. Few invertabrates can, though - not to mention what happens when you submerge shallow-water corals under a few thousand feet of muddy water.

Why don't you try to back up this accusation with some logic or evidence?When there are multiple possible explanations for a biblical event, the responsible theologian will choose the one which provides the best fit to all data (scientific as well as biblical). This is simply responsible scholarship. The irresponsible and circular approach of assuming an explanation which conflicts with science, then claiming this as support for the notion that "science disproves the Bible" is not scholarship at all.

Edited by kbertsche, : accidental double-post

ROTFLMAO.The reasoning is as I have pointed out many times. The message is still the same whether any of the events in the Bible ever happened or not. Using the concept that is anything could conceivably explain the stuff it is not a problem is just plain silly, sophomoric.When you start making shit up to explain away the discrepancies, it just seems silly.Why not just admit they are plot devices for the story.The particular miracle and your suggested supporting material is a good example. You make it sound like moving the shadow back up the steps is something of some importance. It wasn't. It's a throw away comment, a plot device, related to a story about testing God.Second, there is nothing to suggest that the sign was local. The fact is that according to the fable, the Kings of Babylon knew about it. Something so trivial as a sign given to one man about whether or not he would get well enough is not likely something to come to the notice of the rulers of Babylon unless it was more than something limited to a courtyard or even an area like Israel.Come on.It is a plot device. Nothing more. Trying to make it more is about like pretending that Philip Nolan was tried.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't agree that it is only a "plot device", but I agree that not too much should be made of it. It certainly does not "disprove the Bible." At best it only disproves one very naive, unscholarly interpretation of the Bible (One which even some of the most conservative, literalistic interpreters do not hold to).

I was just refering to sidelined's statement: Message 89

quote:

---

This is planetary destruction unlike anything ever described before.

---

If God did it in one planck time there would be no time for all those things to happen.With the shadow returning only 10 degrees, who would notice other than someone that was told it was going to happen. We won't need the sun or the moon in the New heaven and earth God the Son is the light of it.So what would be the problem with God supplying Joshua extra light.
We light up areas today and build buildings, roads and other things with artifical light. What is the big deal with having a battlefield engulfed in light. NFL does it all the time. Who said anything about altering the rotation of the earth. God could have flipped a switch like they do every monday night on NFL Monday Night Football and said fight on.

---

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

Isn't that the point of this entire forum? If your god does anything at anytime, including last Thursday, to fool her/his creation into believing that all human attempts to make the world a more understandable and therefore better place to live in are ultimately futile, is that not a capricious and cruel god. Should anyone be forced at the end of the barrel of a gun to teach your inhuman and ungodly concept of God?Yeah, god tricks the intellectually curious into hell. Which god are you referring to and if this god is so anti-intellectual, so anti-curious, so anti-human, is that God or the adversary of God?

Except that is not what it says..."The sun stood still and the moon stayed---and hasted not to go down about a whole day" Errr you mean killing field. Did miss the part where the slew everything including women and children as a form of a pay back. Do on to others as they have done on to you - that it is the ethic principle right. Read the passage - the sun and moon was stayed. Combine that with our modern knowledge of heliocentric solar system and the rest follows.