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]

I see what you are saying, so let's start here, using one of your past example authors. And before you answer, please be advised that questions 1) and 2) are only meant for individuals who have been involved in deep study of the two questions. As I stated prior, for question 2), only hermeneutic scholars.

1) Was Lord of the Rings meant to be a literal account?
2) Was Genesis meant to be a literal account?

1) No
2) No

Because question 2), like question 1), is a simple (yes/no) question. Both the scholarly, as well as not, would all likely unanimously agree on the same answer, for question 1). And sure, a unanimous response is not necessarily what makes the answer to question 1) correct, but it would still present as a direct byproduct.

******************

The over-arching point being, asking "if science debunks the Lord of the Rings" becomes a nonsensical question, because we all know, based upon common knowledge, that it was not meant to be literal. Was Genesis?

There have been different genres concurrently throughout human history. The question, for each text, is what genre it fits in and how that affects our interpretation of it. Some texts are easier to see than others because we know the context it was written in, in some cases have the author answering these questions directly for us, etc. We agree on LotR. Genesis was written in a different culture, in a different context, so it’s case is completely separate from LotR. So, why do you believe the creation story is literal?

Then (for you), the OP title question is irrelevant.

And, as I stated prior, hermeneutic scholars do not even agree as to Genesis being literal or not, let alone the subtle nuances and such

Why do I believe the creation story was meant to be taken as a literal set of events? We've been over this already.

[TRANSPONDER]

Certainly, if any part of the Bible is not considered literal, but metaphorical, then science does not need to debunk it, though of course the thing it is supposed to be a metaphor of (morals for instance) raises it's own questions. Thus, Genesis if not considered literally an historical event, is debunked without science having to get out of the bed is shares with philosophy.

[The Tanager]

Then (for you), the OP title question is irrelevant.

And, as I stated prior, hermeneutic scholars do not even agree as to Genesis being literal or not, let alone the subtle nuances and such

Why do I believe the creation story was meant to be taken as a literal set of events? We've been over this already.

No, it isn’t irrelevant, since the Bible is more than the beginning of Genesis. Science could debunk parts of the Bible, when those claims lie within scientific fields. I don’t think Genesis does. You do. You’ve said why: because it’s just common sense that that’s what Genesis means. That is not an actual reason; it’s an unsupported claim.

[The Tanager]

Certainly, if any part of the Bible is not considered literal, but metaphorical, then science does not need to debunk it, though of course the thing it is supposed to be a metaphor of (morals for instance) raises it's own questions. Thus, Genesis if not considered literally an historical event, is debunked without science having to get out of the bed is shares with philosophy.

How is Genesis debunked in this way?

[TRANSPONDER]

Certainly, if any part of the Bible is not considered literal, but metaphorical, then science does not need to debunk it, though of course the thing it is supposed to be a metaphor of (morals for instance) raises it's own questions. Thus, Genesis if not considered literally an historical event, is debunked without science having to get out of the bed is shares with philosophy.

How is Genesis debunked in this way?

The order of creation is wrong. The sun was not made after the earth, the grass before the fish (it was a fair guess, but science debunks it) and Geology does not support a global flood - ever. Only evasions and science -denial can say otherwise.

Science also denied the prophecy of Tyre, the walls of Jericho and history at least makes a good case that Daniel is retrospective history, not prophecy, and there is an increasingly good argument that Exodus is the same.

And the NT fares no better. History (let's call it a science, hey? ) debunks the Nativities. The Resurrection is nearly as bad (denial and attempts to invent explanations out of thin air like the women at the tomb splitting up - not a scrap of anything in the Bible to suggest that - and the good old Judas contradiction which is always fun, and didn';t we enjoy the recent effort to make the translation turn synchronised somersaults to try to pretend that the priests buying the field was a the same as Judas buying the field. The case can be made that you give your boy a ten dollars to go and but a 6 pack of beer is effectively you buying it, but that isn't what happened; the priests were not an agency for Judas and the money was no longer his.

I'm just noting the length that Bible apologists will go to to deny what is obvious on the flimsiest excuse, make up excuses not based on anything the Bible and of course, deny what science says, deny even what the Bible says; deny everything.

[The Tanager]

Certainly, if any part of the Bible is not considered literal, but metaphorical, then science does not need to debunk it, though of course the thing it is supposed to be a metaphor of (morals for instance) raises it's own questions. Thus, Genesis if not considered literally an historical event, is debunked without science having to get out of the bed is shares with philosophy.

How is Genesis debunked in this way?

The order of creation is wrong. The sun was not made after the earth, the grass before the fish (it was a fair guess, but science debunks it) and Geology does not support a global flood - ever. Only evasions and science -denial can say otherwise.

Wait, you said above that even if Genesis is not considered literal, it’s still debunked. But the reason you gave here is to treat Genesis as being literal. I’m asking why, if the order of creation or that it was a global flood, is not meant literally, why it would still be debunked.

[POI]

No, it isn’t irrelevant, since the Bible is more than the beginning of Genesis. Science could debunk parts of the Bible, when those claims lie within scientific fields.

After exchanging with you at length, I do not think 'science' could debunk it. Genesis is apparently not literal. And lack in evidence to a very large claimed literal event, for which we should find all sorts of stuff, keeps you completely agnostic.

I don’t think Genesis does. You do. You’ve said why: because it’s just common sense that that’s what Genesis means. That is not an actual reason; it’s an unsupported claim.

I can't believe I still have to spend more time on this. But here it goes... It is pure (common sense / common knowledge) that all books I encounter are either meant to be fiction or non-fiction. When I address the Rig Veda, the Quran, the Bible, the book of Scientology, or any other intended holy book, they are not meant to be works of fiction. So, if you wish to compartmentalize a part (i.e. Genesis), for which you believe is not meant to be literal, from each of these books, please demonstrate how you know. Otherwise, when addressing a non-functional book, the default is that the said event(s) is meant to be literal.

[TRANSPONDER]

Certainly, if any part of the Bible is not considered literal, but metaphorical, then science does not need to debunk it, though of course the thing it is supposed to be a metaphor of (morals for instance) raises it's own questions. Thus, Genesis if not considered literally an historical event, is debunked without science having to get out of the bed is shares with philosophy.

How is Genesis debunked in this way?

The order of creation is wrong. The sun was not made after the earth, the grass before the fish (it was a fair guess, but science debunks it) and Geology does not support a global flood - ever. Only evasions and science -denial can say otherwise.

Wait, you said above that even if Genesis is not considered literal, it’s still debunked. But the reason you gave here is to treat Genesis as being literal. I’m asking why, if the order of creation or that it was a global flood, is not meant literally, why it would still be debunked.

read it again.I said if not considered literal it doesn't need to be debunked, though the claim the metaphor is based on might need attention. Debunking only relates to claims that are supposed to be a factual claim.If not, science doesn't need to debunk it - though atheists do as the believers will still try to pass off a 'metaphorical' passage as somehow true.

Can't take our eyes off these scammers for a minute.

[The Tanager]

I can't believe I still have to spend more time on this. But here it goes... It is pure (common sense / common knowledge) that all books I encounter are either meant to be fiction or non-fiction. When I address the Rig Veda, the Quran, the Bible, the book of Scientology, or any other intended holy book, they are not meant to be works of fiction. So, if you wish to compartmentalize a part (i.e. Genesis), for which you believe is not meant to be literal, from each of these books, please demonstrate how you know. Otherwise, when addressing a non-functional book, the default is that the said event(s) is meant to be literal.

If all you are going to continue to do is claim your view is the default because you say it is and shift the burden, then you don’t need to spend any more time on it.

[The Tanager]

Certainly, if any part of the Bible is not considered literal, but metaphorical, then science does not need to debunk it, though of course the thing it is supposed to be a metaphor of (morals for instance) raises it's own questions. Thus, Genesis if not considered literally an historical event, is debunked without science having to get out of the bed is shares with philosophy.

How is Genesis debunked in this way?

The order of creation is wrong. The sun was not made after the earth, the grass before the fish (it was a fair guess, but science debunks it) and Geology does not support a global flood - ever. Only evasions and science -denial can say otherwise.

Wait, you said above that even if Genesis is not considered literal, it’s still debunked. But the reason you gave here is to treat Genesis as being literal. I’m asking why, if the order of creation or that it was a global flood, is not meant literally, why it would still be debunked.

read it again.I said if not considered literal it doesn't need to be debunked, though the claim the metaphor is based on might need attention. Debunking only relates to claims that are supposed to be a factual claim.If not, science doesn't need to debunk it - though atheists do as the believers will still try to pass off a 'metaphorical' passage as somehow true.

Can't take our eyes off these scammers for a minute.

I did read it again. I bolded the part where you said Genesis is still debunked. I’m asking you to show that debunking, not through science, but through whatever you think debunks it.