Does Science Debunk The Bible?

[Data]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

[POI]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

Call me a "clairvoyant", but I have the sneaking suspicion that most all of Genesis, and maybe beyond, was meant to be philosophical/metaphorical/figurative, or to merely be truth by way of moral messaging, as opposed to literal claimed events. Via (viewtopic.php?p=1139359#p1139359). If this IS true, then logically, the physical sciences cannot touch them. Same goes for later story lines, like The Exodus. If we have no evidence to support the claim, then the theist can either state "we are not looking in the right places or even in the right timeline", <or>, "we have simply not found anything yet." And as for claimed ancient "supernatural events", science cannot logically touch them either.

So you may be safe?.?.?. Barring the pending outcome of the aforementioned topic above working in YOUR favor? But does it? (i.e.) Was "Noah's flood" a literal claim, as described? If so, was it local/global? Was it a few thousand years or ago, or longer? Wouldn't The Exodus, being it included millions of folks over many centuries, leave behind a ton of evidence? Etc? Oh, but wait, these are not real events, so nevermind

[TRANSPONDER]

Our pal Data implies,in another post, that literal or not Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) was intended to draw people to a god that is supposed to exist. Sounds pretty circular to me and based (of course) on a priori godfaith. Everyone has to make their choice, but the logic is, non - belief in a claim is mandatory until the claim is validated. How to validate it? Revelation and the like funny feelings? The meme that Theist apologists use about 'imperfect human perceptions' applies much more to beliefs that pop into the head than to matters that can be investigated with a method designed to check and eliminate such errors. Faith is designed to accommodate errors and excuse them, so long as they suit the Belief, then they don't matter so long as they are intended to confirm the bias or 'draw people to God', to translate the English into Theist.

I hardly need to touch on the dismissal of science, history and even logic when it questions godfaith and its' basis - the Bible. Probably the most egregious example of this was my reference to Ranesses V (or was it IIIrd?) and his inscription about the Sea Peoples on the temple at Medinet Habu - "Hearsay" he used to dismiss it. To reverse another Theist apologist meme "If we can't trust an inscription by one who was there, how can we trust the Bible".

The special pleading and double -standard Theist apologists expect to be applied in favor of their beliefs is truly staggering.