Does science disprove the bible

[Kenny]

According to NOAA the average depth of the ocean is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet now if we leveled out the earth's surface the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html. the ocean is deeper than the tallest mountain on land the tallest mountains on the earth are not on land but rise up from the sea floor.

Also the population of the earth today about 7 billion people world wide lines up with a global flood about 4300 years ago.

If you go back 4300 years ago and start with a man and woman and set the population growth at 2.5 children per family and come up to today you should have about 7 billion people on the earth, now with evolution it used to be you had to go back 1million years for the first man and woman but new scientific discoveries keep moving it more recent but still not biblically close,but it seems to be moving to a more recent time for the first man and woman but yet everything is looked at from an evolution perspective and so their dates are set mostly because of evolution and yet there is no evidence life evolves but we will have to wait and see if it still keeps moving to a much more recent time for the first man and woman looking at everything from that perspective.

I am not a young earth creationist,I am an old earth creationist just so you know.

And what on Earth does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

K

It is evidence of a global flood,there is enough water on this earth for a global flood as I have showed despite the rhetoric.Denying evidence is not good especially if you believe life evolves.

As you pointed out; there is only enough water to cover the Earth if somehow the entire planet magically becomes as smooth as a cue ball! The planet never became as smooth as a cue ball. Remember the discussion is about does the bible contradict science! It's not about trying to make the "round peg" of an answer fit into that "square peg" of an agenda you keep insisting on!

Ken

[Kenny]

These are fair questions, Ken. I have myself found this quite troubling (since I did believe, not to far back in time that the flood must be local). One of the reasons I assume that whether the flood was local or global...it does seems to be more global as the bible tells it. From science we do know that humans were also present in the Americas and other parts of the world not connected to the land mass where the flood if it was local was happening. So it kind of becomes problematic. See if the plan was to wipe out sinful people or populations than that goal was never achieved. And if the flood was local than lands masses separated by ocean present a problem. If the flood was global than there are other problems which are more scientific in nature.

To be honest I expect someone to say it was a miracle (and to be fair there is nothing wrong with it but then we lose the scientific credibility of proving it on natural grounds as a plausible event). Otherwise its hard to understand.

I agree!

Ken

[RickD]

Paul,

Let's assume there are no natural explanations for the Jonah story, and the sun standing still. I would still like to see how Kenny can show that science disproved either of those.

It's a big assertion, that according to science, many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong.

Let's see if it's true.

I didn't say anything about science disproving anything. I gave 3 examples of claims in the bible that contradict science.

Ken

Ken, how can we have a discussion if you aren't being honest? Look at the first post in this thread. In that post, you will find your assertion that caused me to start the thread. This is what you asserted:

Ken wrote:
According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.

You made a very specific assertion that I challenged you to back up.

[Kenny]

Paul,

Let's assume there are no natural explanations for the Jonah story, and the sun standing still. I would still like to see how Kenny can show that science disproved either of those.

It's a big assertion, that according to science, many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong.

Let's see if it's true.

I didn't say anything about science disproving anything. I gave 3 examples of claims in the bible that contradict science.

Ken

Ken, how can we have a discussion if you aren't being honest? Look at the first post in this thread. In that post, you will find your assertion that caused me to start the thread. This is what you asserted:

Ken wrote:
According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.

You made a very specific assertion that I challenged you to back up.

As I said before; there is a difference between the claim

1. “according to science, many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong” and
2. “Science disproves the bible”

The first claim is about providing proof that meets the standards of science! The second one means providing proof that meets the standards of who ever the claim is directed at. That could be anybody; even a theist who believes in miracles; which would make proof nearly impossible.

Ken

[RickD]

Paul,

Let's assume there are no natural explanations for the Jonah story, and the sun standing still. I would still like to see how Kenny can show that science disproved either of those.

It's a big assertion, that according to science, many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong.

Let's see if it's true.

I didn't say anything about science disproving anything. I gave 3 examples of claims in the bible that contradict science.

Ken

Ken, how can we have a discussion if you aren't being honest? Look at the first post in this thread. In that post, you will find your assertion that caused me to start the thread. This is what you asserted:

Ken wrote:
According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.

You made a very specific assertion that I challenged you to back up.

As I said before; there is a difference between the claim

1. “according to science, many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong” and
2. “Science disproves the bible”

The first claim is about providing proof that meets the standards of science! The second one means providing proof that meets the standards of who ever the claim is directed at. That could be anybody; even a theist who believes in miracles; which would make proof nearly impossible.

Ken

Ken,

Stick to the assertion you made. That's what this thread is about.
And so far, you haven't shown that any claims that the bible made, can or have been proven wrong by science.

If you want to stick to your original assertion, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, we can continue.

And just so you don't waste anyone's time, things that the bible claims, that are miraculous, cannot be proven wrong by science. Such as Christ's resurrection, the immaculate conception, etc.

[Kenny]

Paul,

Let's assume there are no natural explanations for the Jonah story, and the sun standing still. I would still like to see how Kenny can show that science disproved either of those.

It's a big assertion, that according to science, many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong.

Let's see if it's true.

I didn't say anything about science disproving anything. I gave 3 examples of claims in the bible that contradict science.

Ken

Ken, how can we have a discussion if you aren't being honest? Look at the first post in this thread. In that post, you will find your assertion that caused me to start the thread. This is what you asserted:

Ken wrote:
According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.

You made a very specific assertion that I challenged you to back up.

As I said before; there is a difference between the claim

1. “according to science, many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong” and
2. “Science disproves the bible”

The first claim is about providing proof that meets the standards of science! The second one means providing proof that meets the standards of who ever the claim is directed at. That could be anybody; even a theist who believes in miracles; which would make proof nearly impossible.

Ken

Ken,

Stick to the assertion you made. That's what this thread is about.
And so far, you haven't shown that any claims that the bible made, can or have been proven wrong by science.

If you want to stick to your original assertion, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, we can continue.

And just so you don't waste anyone's time, things that the bible claims, that are miraculous, cannot be proven wrong by science. Such as Christ's resurrection, the immaculate conception, etc.

I didn’t even start this thread! Somebody else did. When I was responding to a person, somebody else took my words (free of context of the actual discussion taking place) and started this thread, now you guys seem to be trying to make it appear I made a claim that I did not. I never said science proves the bible wrong. I said “according to science many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong.”
Those were my exact words. Now if you want to discuss THAT; let’s do it. If you want to discuss something else; I’m open to that as well, but I am not going to defend a position I do not hold

Ken

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
I didn’t even start this thread! Somebody else did. When I was responding to a person, somebody else took my words (free of context of the actual discussion taking place) and started this thread, now you guys seem to be trying to make it appear I made a claim that I did not. I never said science proves the bible wrong. I said “according to science many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong.”
Those were my exact words. Now if you want to discuss THAT; let’s do it. If you want to discuss something else; I’m open to that as well, but I am not going to defend a position I do not hold

Kenny,

Please pay attention! If you read the original post on this thread, you will see that I started this thread. I split it from another thread, because the assertion you made needed its own discussion.

1) You made an assertion:

Ken wrote:
According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.

2) I asked if you cared to back your assertion.

3) you gave three examples of what you were supposed to have believed were claims of the bible, and that science could prove them wrong(your assertion).

I thought were were going to discuss your assertion, and your examples.

So far, we can't even get past the fact that you don't even understand what you asserted.

It's really not rocket surgery.

[Kenny]

3) you gave three examples of what you were supposed to have believed were claims of the bible, and that science could prove them wrong(your assertion).

No! I gave three examples of claims of the bible that ACCORDING TO SCIENCE can be proven wrong.

Ken

[RickD]

Seriously Kenny?

RickD wrote:
3) you gave three examples of what you were supposed to have believed were claims of the bible, and that science could prove them wrong(your assertion).

No! I gave three examples of claims of the bible that ACCORDING TO SCIENCE can be proven wrong.

The underlined part of what I wrote, says the same thing as the underlined part in what you wrote.

I'll give you one last chance to understand what's going on here.

If you don't even know the meaning of what you asserted, we can't have a rational discussion.

Kenny,
Please don't waste peoples' time by posting on this board, if you cannot have a simple conversation.

[Kenny]

Seriously Kenny?

RickD wrote:
3) you gave three examples of what you were supposed to have believed were claims of the bible, and that science could prove them wrong(your assertion).

No! I gave three examples of claims of the bible that ACCORDING TO SCIENCE can be proven wrong.

The underlined part of what I wrote, says the same thing as the underlined part in what you wrote.

No it does not. I've explained the difference time and time again and you still aren't getting it!

I'll give you one last chance to understand what's going on here.

If you don't even know the meaning of what you asserted, we can't have a rational discussion.

Kenny,
Please don't waste peoples' time by posting on this board, if you cannot have a simple conversation.

According to science; Noah's ark could not have happened.
According to science; Jonah could not have gotten swallowed by a whale
According to science; Joshua did not cause the Sun to stand still

Do you agree with these statements? Yes or no.

Ken

PS I will be going out of town for a few days. Come up with a good answer and I will give a reply when I get back

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

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

[abelcainsbrother]

These are fair questions, Ken. I have myself found this quite troubling (since I did believe, not to far back in time that the flood must be local). One of the reasons I assume that whether the flood was local or global...it does seems to be more global as the bible tells it. From science we do know that humans were also present in the Americas and other parts of the world not connected to the land mass where the flood if it was local was happening. So it kind of becomes problematic. See if the plan was to wipe out sinful people or populations than that goal was never achieved. And if the flood was local than lands masses separated by ocean present a problem. If the flood was global than there are other problems which are more scientific in nature.

To be honest I expect someone to say it was a miracle (and to be fair there is nothing wrong with it but then we lose the scientific credibility of proving it on natural grounds as a plausible event). Otherwise its hard to understand.

I agree!

Ken

Neo there have been caves found in America and on the walls on the cave was a picture of a global flood painted on the cave wall which is evidence for a global flood.I wish I had a link but I don't I just remember watching a show on TV where they were showing it.Skeptics would have to say they were new paintings,etc.But if they are legit it shows whoever lived in the ancient america's believed in a global flood - Indians.

[RickD]

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.

[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?

[RickD]

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?