Evidence for God from Science

This thread was split off another thread. It began with Kenny's assertion here

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

So I split this thread so Kenny could show us how "according to science; many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong". So let's see if and how science has proven the bible wrong.

RickD wrote:

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

Care to back this up with an example?

Are you sure you wanna go there? I thought we’ve been over this already; maybe it was someone else.

Noah’s Ark

Any engineer will tell you it is impossible to build a vessel strictly out of wood; without any steel reinforcements, the size on Noah’s ark and float. Even with today’s pressure treated wood, a vessel of this size cannot float. People (theists) of today have built replicas of the Ark, but they either were not up to scale, were put on a barge, or were built with a steel frame because the builders knew the dimensions of such a boat will not float.
So the entire planet was covered with water? Was that salt water or fresh water? How did the fresh water life survive in salt water or visa versa? Even though it only rained for 40 days, it is said the total time spent on the Ark was over a year. What did all those animals eat during this time without any type of refrigeration? Dead meat would have spoiled, vegetation would have withered away after a year. And what about the waste? The door was locked! Disease would have been everywhere; not to mention the smell.

So after the ark landed on a mountain somewhere in Middle East Asia, how did all those Kangaroos and Kola Bears get to Antarctica without leaving a trail? And after the water rescinded, how did the fresh water separate itself from the salt water? They say it would take nearly 5 times the amount of water currently on Earth to cover the entire planet to the highest mountain. Where did all the water go? There is water underground; but not that much! Doesn’t sound like something backed up by science to me

Jonah and the fish/whale

So a man gets swallowed by a whale, stays in his belly for 3 days without any air supply and when vomited out, he is fine? Forget about the fact that the whale’s throat is too small for a whole human to go down, but are we supposed to believe he held his breath during this time? Don’t think science will sign off on that one either


The Sun stood still
So during a war, Joshua held his arms up and that caused the sun to stand still so he can win the war? In order for the sun to appear to stand still, the Earth would have to quit rotating. The Earth currently rotates at approx. 1000 mph at the Equator (okay so they were in Asia let’s say 600 mph) can you imagine the effect momentum would have if the entire planet came to a screeching halt at that speed? Everything would be destroyed! Yet nobody felt anything and they just kept on fighting. You don’t even need to be a scientist to see the flaws in this one. I could list more stories, but I think you get the picture.

Ken

Kenny,

Ken wrote:
Any engineer will tell you it is impossible to build a vessel strictly out of wood; without any steel reinforcements, the size on Noah’s ark and float. Even with today’s pressure treated wood, a vessel of this size cannot float. People (theists) of today have built replicas of the Ark, but they either were not up to scale, were put on a barge, or were built with a steel frame because the builders knew the dimensions of such a boat will not float.

Not true. This says otherwise:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 85/?no-ist

According to the article, they took the specific instructions that Noah had to build the ark, and said theoretically, that it would float.

So the entire planet was covered with water? Was that salt water or fresh water? How did the fresh water life survive in salt water or visa versa? Even though it only rained for 40 days, it is said the total time spent on the Ark was over a year. What did all those animals eat during this time without any type of refrigeration? Dead meat would have spoiled, vegetation would have withered away after a year. And what about the waste? The door was locked! Disease would have been everywhere; not to mention the smell.

You are using a YEC interpretation(the entire planet was covered with water), to argue that the flood couldn't have happened. You are only attempting to discredit the YEC interpretation. This argument in your quote does nothing to discredit a local flood interpretation. And again, if you're not familiar with OEC, only animals from the area were on the ark. Not animals from the entire planet.

So after the ark landed on a mountain somewhere in Middle East Asia, how did all those Kangaroos and Kola Bears get to Antarctica without leaving a trail? And after the water rescinded, how did the fresh water separate itself from the salt water? They say it would take nearly 5 times the amount of water currently on Earth to cover the entire planet to the highest mountain. Where did all the water go? There is water underground; but not that much! Doesn’t sound like something backed up by science to me

Again, you are assuming a YEC interpretation. Kangaroos and Koala bears are only native to Australia. Remember, local flood. Not global flood.

I'll get your response on this before we proceed on the other two examples you gave.

There are multiple ways to view these issues and taking into account that the writer(s) of these accounts were far more interested in making a theological statement then adhering to scientific facts, one should NOT look into these accounts that are clearly viewed as MIRACLES as shining examples of standard daily happenings in the ANE.
The Jonah story is a perfect example of a miracle story since there was NO WAY that anyone could have survived without the help of God, that is basically the point of that part of the story.
As for the Ark, while there are some valid concerns as to a ship of that size being seaworthy, I have no problem in believing that the measurements may not be 100% correct since I doubt very much that the point of the writers was to give "how-to-build" instructions.
And, as Kurioeo pointed out, only the YEC interpretation leads on to view the flood as being a global flood.

As for the sun standing still, I am sure it seemed that way to Joshua or at least it was written that way later.
I don't think God needed the Earth to stop spinning for there to be extended daylight to help in the battle BUT we are talking about God here and IF He wanted it to be so, then it would have been so.
I just don't think that it was because there would have been no need to suspend the very Laws of the universe that God created to help in one battle.

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.

RickD wrote: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.

Well, as Audie likes to point out, science isn't in the business of proving anything so it can't disprove anything either.

Of course we know that science can prove certain things, typically those that are observable so, at best, all science can do is cast doubt on certain parts of certain biblical narratives but disprove them? No.


I remember on skeptic calling into question the pillar of fire in the Exodus narrative until I showed him a youtube video of one such event, a natural occurrence, in Brasil.

PaulSacramento wrote:There are multiple ways to view these issues and taking into account that the writer(s) of these accounts were far more interested in making a theological statement then adhering to scientific facts, one should NOT look into these accounts that are clearly viewed as MIRACLES as shining examples of standard daily happenings in the ANE.
The Jonah story is a perfect example of a miracle story since there was NO WAY that anyone could have survived without the help of God, that is basically the point of that part of the story.
As for the Ark, while there are some valid concerns as to a ship of that size being seaworthy, I have no problem in believing that the measurements may not be 100% correct since I doubt very much that the point of the writers was to give "how-to-build" instructions.
And, as Kurioeo pointed out, only the YEC interpretation leads on to view the flood as being a global flood.

As for the sun standing still, I am sure it seemed that way to Joshua or at least it was written that way later.
I don't think God needed the Earth to stop spinning for there to be extended daylight to help in the battle BUT we are talking about God here and IF He wanted it to be so, then it would have been so.
I just don't think that it was because there would have been no need to suspend the very Laws of the universe that God created to help in one battle.

I know it may not prove Jonah's story but ancient coins were discovered depicting a man being spit out of a big fish,it may not prove it but for coins to be made it lends credence.

RickD
Not true. This says otherwise:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 85/?no-ist

According to the article, they took the specific instructions that Noah had to build the ark, and said theoretically, that it would float.

Ken
The problem with the site you listed is it doesn’t address the real problem with building a boat strictly out of wood. The article says

To float, a boat has to exert the same amount of force on the ocean as the weight of the water it displaces. This buoyancy force is essentially the biggest weight the ark could hold and not sink. To put it another way, an object with a density greater than water will sink. So if the Bible gives an approximate volume of the ark, and after factoring in the mass of the wood used to build it, one could figure out how much mass the system could take before it becomes more dense than water and sinks.

The problem that is not addressed as I mentioned before, is wood is too flexible. In order for a boat to float, it must be able to remain stable while the water is constantly moving. Wood flexes. A wooden boat will flex to the point that it will leak and sink. Your article did not address this problem.

Bill Nye the science guy does an excellent job of addressing this problem (along with some others I haven’t even thought of) in the video clip below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OhXQTMOEc


RickD
You are using a YEC interpretation(the entire planet was covered with water), to argue that the flood couldn't have happened. You are only attempting to discredit the YEC interpretation. This argument in your quote does nothing to discredit a local flood interpretation. And again, if you're not familiar with OEC, only animals from the area were on the ark. Not animals from the entire planet.


Ken
I am not familier with YEC or OEC but if they are claiming the entire planet was not covered with water, it seems this is going against scripture because Genesis 7:19 says all the mountains and hills were covered with water; not just those in a certain area. Genesis 7:21-24 is very clear that all flesh died; animals and people, not just those in a specific area.
If YEC or OEC people are claiming anything other than a global flood, how do they get around those scriptures I quoted?

Ken

Ken,

I really don't want to get into a YEC vs OEC debate here. But you can read this:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

RickD wrote:Ken,

I really don't want to get into a YEC vs OEC debate here. But you can read this:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

Fair enough. Of course if only a portion of the world were flooded, it would have made more sense to float the boat to shore rather than sitting in the water for more than a year, waiting for the water to rescind. Or better yet, pack up and leave that area before the flood starts
So what about the fact that a boat of that size cannot float without steel structures? And what did they eat? How did they get rid of the waste?

Ken

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.

PaulSacramento wrote:There are multiple ways to view these issues and taking into account that the writer(s) of these accounts were far more interested in making a theological statement then adhering to scientific facts, one should NOT look into these accounts that are clearly viewed as MIRACLES as shining examples of standard daily happenings in the ANE.
The Jonah story is a perfect example of a miracle story since there was NO WAY that anyone could have survived without the help of God, that is basically the point of that part of the story.
As for the Ark, while there are some valid concerns as to a ship of that size being seaworthy, I have no problem in believing that the measurements may not be 100% correct since I doubt very much that the point of the writers was to give "how-to-build" instructions.
And, as Kurioeo pointed out, only the YEC interpretation leads on to view the flood as being a global flood.

As for the sun standing still, I am sure it seemed that way to Joshua or at least it was written that way later.
I don't think God needed the Earth to stop spinning for there to be extended daylight to help in the battle BUT we are talking about God here and IF He wanted it to be so, then it would have been so.
I just don't think that it was because there would have been no need to suspend the very Laws of the universe that God created to help in one battle.

Miracles do not have the backing of science. If you agree the examples I gave are miracles; then you must also agree that they contradict science. that is the only point I was making.

RickD wrote: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

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.

abelcainsbrother wrote: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

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: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.