Does science disprove the bible

[Audie]

According to science; Noah's ark could not have happened.
According to science; Jonah could not have gotten swallowed by a whale

You have not shown either of these assertions to be true.

According to science; Joshua did not cause the Sun to stand still

You said claims that the bible makes. The bible doesn't say that Joshua caused the sun to stand still.

Reread the passage.

This thread is going no where fast.

Can science, in your opinion, disprove anything about the Book of Mormon?

I have no idea. I've never read the Book of Mormon.

Anyways, Doesn't science accept or reject, rather than prove or disprove?

Science just sits there like a rotten tree stump. Its up to people to take action.

Regarding LDS, at least read this, I think you will find it interesting in unintended ways.
http://www.restoredgospel.com/GE/Handou ... 0Story.asp

The BoM is essentially unreadable. Mark Twain said if you delete
all the places it says "and it came to pass" it could be printed as a pamphlet.

[abelcainsbrother]

According to science; Noah's ark could not have happened.
According to science; Jonah could not have gotten swallowed by a whale

You have not shown either of these assertions to be true.

According to science; Joshua did not cause the Sun to stand still

You said claims that the bible makes. The bible doesn't say that Joshua caused the sun to stand still.

Reread the passage.

This thread is going no where fast.

Can science, in your opinion, disprove anything about the Book of Mormon?

I used to know how science disproves the book of mormon but I can't remember what it was about but I think the book of mormon tells of a certian race of people that supposedly lived in America along time ago pre-America yet there is no archeological evidence they existed.

[Jac3510]

There are a range of scientific problems with the BoM. Off the top of my head, the basic premise of the whole book is that native Americans are descendents of a sixth century BC Jewish family. DNA studies have shown no such ancestry. Another major problem is that the book names dozens of cities and their locations, and not a single one has been found. There is a massive war recorded, and we know where it was supposed to have take place. Again, we have not found a single shred of evidence that it actually happened. There are other archaeological problems relating to the language Smith supposedly translated from (*"Reformed Egyptian"). In short, the BoM makes a range of claims that simply are not born out by the archaeological record.

[abelcainsbrother]

Bob Larson is a christian hero of mine and he was/is a cult professional who traveled the world studying religions I used to listen to his radio talk show and I always liked how he talked about things from a biblical perspective that you don't normally hear discussed in church which made him controversial so I was going on something he said about the BoM I just could'nt remember for sure.

[Kenny]

Kenny, Kenny, Kenny,

If God had told Noah to build his floating zoo as a doubled hulled icebreaker made out of corten steel, you still would find that unbelievable...and unscientific. You see, the problem is with you, not with the biblical story. As a pagan, it is not possible for you to accept - much less understand - very much about the Bible. Where the Bible agrees with the Word that is written in your heart, you will agree; where the Bible contradicts your degenerate nature (the one we are all born with), you will disagree.

Cut the "Does science disprove the bible" crap, pleeese! Tell us why find the idea of God so distasteful. Be honest.

FL

Science is defined as "A system that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the Universe."
So when I say "according to science Noah's Ark could not have happened" I am saying according to a system that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the Universe", Noah's ark could not have happened, because steel was not used in it's construction and that goes against everything we know about science.
Had Noah built your double hulled Ice Breaker, even though I might not believe it happened; I wouldn't claim according to science it could not have happened.

Ken

[Kenny]

According to science; Noah's ark could not have happened.
According to science; Jonah could not have gotten swallowed by a whale

You have not shown either of these assertions to be true.

According to science; Joshua did not cause the Sun to stand still

You said claims that the bible makes. The bible doesn't say that Joshua caused the sun to stand still.

Reread the passage.

This thread is going no where fast.

So you disagree with what I said in the OP? Please state your objection. BTW if you will notice, when speaking of the Sun standing still, I said "In order for it to APPEAR that the sun stands still". My response didn't speak of the sun actually standing still

Ken

[Audie]

There are a range of scientific problems with the BoM. Off the top of my head, the basic premise of the whole book is that native Americans are descendents of a sixth century BC Jewish family. DNA studies have shown no such ancestry. Another major problem is that the book names dozens of cities and their locations, and not a single one has been found. There is a massive war recorded, and we know where it was supposed to have take place. Again, we have not found a single shred of evidence that it actually happened. There are other archaeological problems relating to the language Smith supposedly translated from (*"Reformed Egyptian"). In short, the BoM makes a range of claims that simply are not born out by the archaeological record.

Does not much the same apply to the bible?

DNA studies show that there is no such ancestry as a single couple a few thousand years ago.

The book details that there were cities named Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed in a most distinguishable way, no such cities have been found.

There are no linguists that would find the Babel story is reasonable.

No geologists that find for a world wide flood

Geneticists will find huge problems with the "pairs of each kind" account.

In short, the bible makes a ranrge of claims that are not borne our by
investigation.

[PaulSacramento]

DNA studies show that there is no such ancestry as a single couple a few thousand years ago.

The biblical account of a single couple is applied to Adam and Eve as from whom the line of Israel started EXPLICITLY and, the rest of mankind implicitly BUT only if read in a literal and concrete fashion of really just one verse.
The time frame of "a few thousand years ago" would only apply to YEC by the way and again, that is an interpretation.

The book details that there were cities named Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed in a most distinguishable way, no such cities have been found.

Irrelevant, many things are not found until they are found.

There are no linguists that would find the Babel story is reasonable.

Fair enough BUT only if the bible is stating that ALL languages of the whole world came to be like that and only IF the story was told as a scientific fact rather than a typical historical "myth".

No geologists that find for a world wide flood

Irrelevant since the flood being global is an interpretation of the text.

Geneticists will find huge problems with the "pairs of each kind" account.

Irrelevant since no writer of any ancient work spoke "geneticists".

In short, the bible makes a ranrge of claims that are not borne our by
investigation.

No, people make many a claim about things the bible states without taking into account WHO wrote it, WHEN, to WHOM and WHY.

[Jac3510]

Does not much the same apply to the bible?

No. Not even close. The Smithsonian Institute is no Creationist organization, and disregarding the first twelve chapters of Genesis, they state, "On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated. There are conflicts between present archeological evidence and historical reports that may result from a lack of information on our part or from misunderstandings or mistakes by the ancient writers." Their views on the BoM are, suffice it to say, less than complimentary.

DNA studies show that there is no such ancestry as a single couple a few thousand years ago.

That's fine. As a YEC, I don't think there was a single couple a few thousand years ago.

The book details that there were cities named Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed in a most distinguishable way, no such cities have been found.

Not true, but okay.

There are no linguists that would find the Babel story is reasonable.

Ah huh, so you think that language developed independently, multiple times throughout human history? Okay then. But more to the point, there is absolutely zero evidence that even the most ancient modern humans had anything less than a sophisticted system of language. In short, there are no clear evidence of the existence of any primitive languages. And that, Audie, is the science. You can argue that there must have been a time when humans didn't speak any language or that they were developing language and so used an informal language. But that's a philosophical and theological statement on your part. The science, as far as we have it today, backs up my position.

No geologists that find for a world wide flood

Depends on which geologists you ask.

Geneticists will find huge problems with the "pairs of each kind" account.

Standard four-term fallacy.

In short, the bible makes a ranrge of claims that are not borne our by investigation.

Maybe it does, but none of the examples you provided here would exemplify that.

[Audie]

Does not much the same apply to the bible?

No. Not even close. The Smithsonian Institute is no Creationist organization, and disregarding the first twelve chapters of Genesis, they state, "On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated. There are conflicts between present archeological evidence and historical reports that may result from a lack of information on our part or from misunderstandings or mistakes by the ancient writers." Their views on the BoM are, suffice it to say, less than complimentary.

DNA studies show that there is no such ancestry as a single couple a few thousand years ago.

That's fine. As a YEC, I don't think there was a single couple a few thousand years ago.

The book details that there were cities named Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed in a most distinguishable way, no such cities have been found.

Not true, but okay.

There are no linguists that would find the Babel story is reasonable.

Ah huh, so you think that language developed independently, multiple times throughout human history? Okay then. But more to the point, there is absolutely zero evidence that even the most ancient modern humans had anything less than a sophisticted system of language. In short, there are no clear evidence of the existence of any primitive languages. And that, Audie, is the science. You can argue that there must have been a time when humans didn't speak any language or that they were developing language and so used an informal language. But that's a philosophical and theological statement on your part. The science, as far as we have it today, backs up my position.

No geologists that find for a world wide flood

Depends on which geologists you ask.

Geneticists will find huge problems with the "pairs of each kind" account.

Standard four-term fallacy.

In short, the bible makes a ranrge of claims that are not borne our by investigation.

Maybe it does, but none of the examples you provided here would exemplify that.

Much of the bible aint the same as all.

So you agree that the adam and eve story is just a story?

"Not true" on finding no S and G? Just blow it off with that? ha. Those places have not been found, no more than some morom battle site.

No evidence that people 800,000 years ago didnt speak as well as today? No evidence that the dinosaurs didnt recite poetry. Science, "so far as we have it" cant say otherwise.

There are creationist geologists, no doubt, who have a religious obligation to say there was a flood, no matter what. You find that has some sort of evidentiary value for the reality of a flood? Seriously? There was no flood. Holding to the claim that there was makes a person look ridiculous. Its kite down the sewer stuff.

You like DNA evidence only when it goes your way? DNA evidence shows the bible story about pairs of animals if impossible. The fallacy is in your book.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

I take issue with this.

Depends on which geologists you ask.

The only 'geologist' i've ever heard defend this notion of a global flood are under the payroll of "Answers in Genesis."

And forgive me if I don't take a website that put out a video defending the notion that "dragons were real, they were dinosaurs that breathed fire and survived the flood that's why we see them in cultures all over the world; and to the scientists that say that dinosaurs didn't breath fire, I mean, how do you know, were you there?"

Affiliation can lead to invalidation.

[Jac3510]

more genetic fallacies all around. Perhaps your conclusions are right, but when they're presented following such irrational thought processes, they're not very interesting (to put it charitably). I'm not even opposed to mockery. But mockery is only effective when placed in the context of rational arguments.

Let me know if you have any substantive points to make then opposed

[HappyFlappyTheist]

The source does invalidate in this context Jac.

1-If somebody is being paid to produce something slanted a certain way their results are wrong and meaningless.
2-If somebody is being paid to produce something that ascribes perfectly with their religious beliefs the results are grossly skewed. There is 0 objectivity.
3-If somebody is being paid to research something that they already have their minds made up about and they cannot be wrong, IT IS NOT SCIENCE!
All AIG does is disgustingly misinterpret data to fit perfectly along their preconceived notions. Their 'geologist' have 0 respect from the STEM community because of this. The source does invalidate and this is not a genetic fallacy.

If I cited AIG in my geology paper, what would mean ol Dr. Bailey say? He'd probably immediately attack my source.

Maybe I'm failing online philosophy class again but what I'm understanding you to say is "you cannot invalidate something based solely on it's origins." I'm sure some hole will get picked in my last statement as well, so....... would facts help? I can pull some verses from the Flat Earth Society's website that will validate my claim that the global flood never happened.

[Jac3510]

I'm sorry, but it is a genetic fallacy. Let me offer you a stronger argument that is not a genetic fallacy:

HFD: There is no evidence for a global flood
Jac: Depends on which geologists you ask
HFD: True, but anybody can find somebody to agree with their position. The question is to their credibility.
Jac: Of course, and I have no reason to doubt the credibility of these geologists
HFD: Obviously you don't or you wouldn't cite them. But I have significant reason to doubt their credibility.
Jac: Then we are at an impasse.
HFD: Yes, we are. So would you like to go get a beer?
Jac: Nope. I'm more of a wine guy myself.

Notice a few things abous such an exchange. First and foremost, you are not saying that the geologists are wrong because of who they work for. You are saying that you lack warrant for giving serious consideration to their research. And that is fine. Second, there is a difference in "invalidating" a conclusion (which is a statement about the truthfulness of a claim by showing its falsity) and rejecting the warrant for considering the warrant.

I could comment on your three specific statements, but I don't want to get off on a rabbit trail. My point is that your point is a genetic fallacy, and that's just not very interesting. You will find that if you present rational arguments, I've very willing to hear what you have to say. I'm quicker to grant validity and soundness of conclusions, particularly when it comes to scientific matters. But I'm not going to make a habit of doing your work for you, and I'm certainly not going to let sloppy thinking pass without comment. To clarify, the sloppiness is not in the scientific content. I am not a geologist. I don't know what is good geology and what is bad geology. I said what I know: whether or not there is evidence depends on who you ask! You can tell me why you don't feel the need to take their interpretation of the data seriously. You can tell me where their arguments fail and therefore where their conclusions are invalid. You cannot tell me that you think their conclusions are invalid because you don't feel the need to take them seriously. That's a genetic fallacy. It doesn't fly.

Lastly, I expect you could pull plenty of verses from the Flat Earth Society. I, for one, wouldn't look at the source. I would look at the verses and see if they teach what you are using them to teach. But to push things further, because I don't respect the FES, if you defended some proposition by linking me to one of their articles, I would politely decline to read it because I don't respect their methods--no warrant for such respect, you see. Now if you decide that you want to invest the time making the arguments they make, then perhaps I'd play along, so long as I was interested. And that's because I don't know you well enough to accept or reject your opinions. I tend to try to be charitable, so I'd give you the benfit of the doubt and probably talk at some length with you about it, time permitting. But I wouldn't engage in a genetic fallacy. I'm just holding you to the same standard.

Granted, you can do whatever you like. I just don't happen to find discussions built on such fallacies as very interesting. I do, obviously though, find discussions about such fallacies far more entertaining.

[Audie]

The flood story is one of the bible's built in fallacies. One of many, one of many reasons its
not a credible or particularly interesting book.