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?

[TRANSPONDER]

But I sympathize with both our pals, arguing about imponderables like a god (and that seems to be not only something we can't describe or define but can't even agree whose job it is to define or describe it) and where it supposedly lives.

Beyond space and time, existing (eternally, it seems) and yet with no substance (again, it seems) and creating, when or why, never mind how, seems likely to bring the two proponents to a grinding or rather squashing halt. When apologetics such as those designed to make the practical, mechanical and science based doubt everything he ever thought he knew, when they splodge up against each other is it any wonder discussion loses its'point. I'd say it was only ever intended to stump atheists not those arguing undisprovables.

Just doing logic or reason at least, the argument about beyond time and space (while it may be handy for excusing God from being detectable) seems to exclude God from creating anything within time and space. I have in mind the 'light cone' (Zemlinsky, was it?) which said that the being outside couldnot intervene inside.

It's like the wretched and contemptible 'Have you looked everywhere in the universe?' apologetic. Nobody cares about a possible god lurking at the other end of the universe; the only one that matters to atheists or those arguing for a god is one that interferes, oversees and supposedly dictates holy books, here.

Discussions about 'God beyond' may have a sorta academic interest but I have to concur with Data, that they really have limited interest and almost no practicality.

[Data]

1. We have morphological evidence and transitional fossils.
Evolution of tetrapods from fish.

Isn't that impressive? Drawings! Here's another drawing:





That's a dragon! Devil Dragon it's called. Do you know what the word devil means? It means liar. That could be Satan. The ultimate liar. I could show you a drawing of Jesus. Would you like to see a drawing of Jesus? Would that drawing of a blue eyed, fair complected effeminate hippie they draw Jesus as prove to you Jesus was real!?

The thing is though, Alex, that drawing doesn't debunk the Bible. In fact, unless you tell me otherwise there isn't any reason that I can see to argue that the imaginative but poorly drawn image above disagrees with the Bible at all. Sure, it is just a drawing of some bones that the artist had to dream up in his mind and you probably couldn't show me a photograph of all of the bones drawn there, and it is pure speculation but what is being conjecturally presented isn't a problem with the Bible as I can see. That's also true of the next few drawings you posted. Now, I could be wrong about that but you probably wouldn't be able to tell me why. Even if I was wrong it really wouldn't debunk the Bible in my mind because it's only speculative. Conjectural. Imagination. A simple disagreement of opinion. For example, there are some people who think that it isn't wrong to lie. They believe that. Their belief doesn't debunk the Bible, it just disagrees with it. See?

I'm not going to address all of the post, but if you have an original thought on the subject let me know.

[Data]

But I sympathize with both our pals, arguing about imponderables like a god (and that seems to be not only something we can't describe or define but can't even agree whose job it is to define or describe it) and where it supposedly lives.

I don't care who's job it is to define it, a child could define it. Anything or anyone that is worshiped is a god; i.e. "an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god: an adored, admired, or influential person: a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god." (dictionary)

[TRANSPONDER]

I tried to link to the post above your last but something went wrong. The response vanished into hyperspace.

Anyway your last two posts were not very good. The drawings of fossils all related to real objects and evidence. The artwork of a dragon did not relate to anything real that you can demonstrate, whether you say a dragon is a winged reptilian beast or Satan or a carpark perimeter bollard.

Same with applying 'God' to things that have no relevance to a religious discussion. Your effort to pull the old 'a six year old would see this (1)' (should be listed as a logical fallacy) A child would talk about the concept of a supernatural being believed to be real by someone now or in the past. Not an image or idol.

I have to wonder whether these are intended as real points (in which case they are the worst arguments I have heard - even the one on a Forum long long ago where it was argued that the earth was the center of the universe because all rocket launches were calculated from there or whether this was a wind - up just having a bit of fun with us, in which case We are not amused as it insults our intelligence to suppose we would fall for it.

We all like a laugh but I do not appreciate my time being wasted with nonsense especially in an attempt to pull a prank.

(1) the "It's Obvious" gambit.

[alexxcJRO]

Isn't that impressive? Drawings! Here's another drawing:
The thing is though, Alex, that drawing doesn't debunk the Bible. In fact, unless you tell me otherwise there isn't any reason that I can see to argue that the imaginative but poorly drawn image above disagrees with the Bible at all. Sure, it is just a drawing of some bones that the artist had to dream up in his mind and you probably couldn't show me a photograph of all of the bones drawn there, and it is pure speculation but what is being conjecturally presented isn't a problem with the Bible as I can see. That's also true of the next few drawings you posted. Now, I could be wrong about that but you probably wouldn't be able to tell me why. Even if I was wrong it really wouldn't debunk the Bible in my mind because it's only speculative. Conjectural. Imagination. A simple disagreement of opinion. For example, there are some people who think that it isn't wrong to lie. They believe that. Their belief doesn't debunk the Bible, it just disagrees with it. See?

The counter arguments of religious people sometimes baffle me.

Dear sir the drawings show the morphological evidence of existing fossils.
How physical bodies evolved over time.
How legs turned into fins and vice versa. How features evolved. How the skull and brain evolved.
There is plenty of evidence for the fossils that are in the drawings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... al_fossils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil


The fossils are not imagined. The fossils exist. You can go and see them. Even touch them if Toma syndrome plagues you.

I'm not going to address all of the post, but if you have an original thought on the subject let me know.

Off course you are not gonna address the evidence.

Q: Why come here to debate if its too hard ?

I advice maybe do not post on a debate site if you are not going to engage and actually debate.

[Data]

Off course you are not gonna address the evidence.

Q: Why come here to debate if its too hard ?

I advice maybe do not post on a debate site if you are not going to engage and actually debate.

I'm not religious. There isn't any debate. If there was, you would lose. Unless I argued your point for you. Fish changing into fish is completely in line with the Bible. No debate. If you have a fish farm you know that what the Bible says is true. Observable. Everyone knows it. Fish make fish. Not monkey-squirrel-fish-frogs. That seems silly? Yeah. Because it is. If religion has taught us anything it's that people love believing in silly things for little if any real reason other than everyone else does. That's why no one who ever lived has seen a monkey-squirrel-fish-frog. No matter what science says, for whatever reason. Drawings of dragons and ape-men skulls and Jesus - no. I'm not going to debate that in the astonishingly, hysterically funny proposition that the similarities between ape skulls and human skulls mean anything other than that they look similar. It's like higher criticism. The documentary theory. You understand, don't you? Just think of it like theology.

[POI]

Fish make fish. Not monkey-squirrel-fish-frogs. That seems silly? Yeah. Because it is. If religion has taught us anything it's that people love believing in silly things for little if any real reason other than everyone else does. That's why no one who ever lived has seen a monkey-squirrel-fish-frog.

You appear to have little grasp on what evolutionary biology fundamentally teaches. Your argument resembles Kirk Cameron's argument (i.e. the "crockoduck argument"), who also has little grasp on what evolutionary biology actually teaches. I suggest, if you wish to actually argue something, to at least have a basic understanding of what that science teaches.

[Data]

I tried to link to the post above your last but something went wrong. The response vanished into hyperspace.

Don't you hate it when that happens? Best to copy your response before posting, but I can never remember. This post?

Anyway your last two posts were not very good.

Well, Trans, I tell ya' I just don't think they pay me enough. $5000. Good posts?! That's not why I'm here.

The drawings of fossils all related to real objects and evidence.

I covered that in the post. Show me the bones, not the drawings. Where are those?

The artwork of a dragon did not relate to anything real that you can demonstrate, whether you say a dragon is a winged reptilian beast or Satan or a carpark perimeter bollard.

But, you see, the dragon is metaphoric - and drawing of the science faith to which you adhere? Where's the bones, Trans?

Same with applying 'God' to things that have no relevance to a religious discussion. Your effort to pull the old 'a six year old would see this (1)' (should be listed as a logical fallacy) A child would talk about the concept of a supernatural being believed to be real by someone now or in the past. Not an image or idol.

You missed the point, I think. A child could read.

I have to wonder whether these are intended as real points (in which case they are the worst arguments I have heard - even the one on a Forum long long ago where it was argued that the earth was the center of the universe because all rocket launches were calculated from there or whether this was a wind - up just having a bit of fun with us, in which case We are not amused as it insults our intelligence to suppose we would fall for it.

1. Micro and macro. Things change. Not a problem Biblically speaking. Ramapithicus? Australopithecus? Lucy? Piltdown? Pepper moth? Those are problems, but not with the Bible. They are only disagreements, not debunking. Oh, and silly, but that's not a problem, now is it, Trans? No. Wait a minute . . . . I'm hearing a distant voice. A revelation, yes! A revelation from the trinity of atheism. Science, reason and logic. I will be cast out but rise after 3 days.

2. Know your Biblical kinds. Only that is observed.

We all like a laugh but I do not appreciate my time being wasted with nonsense especially in an attempt to pull a prank.

Right. Right. Right. Right. I got a little carried away explaining the inner workings of the institution to Alex. I've been warned.

(1) the "It's Obvious" gambit.

Apparently not.

[TRANSPONDER]

I tried to link to the post above your last but something went wrong. The response vanished into hyperspace.

Don't you hate it when that happens? Best to copy your response before posting, but I can never remember. This post?

Anyway your last two posts were not very good.

Well, Trans, I tell ya' I just don't think they pay me enough. $5000. Good posts?! That's not why I'm here.

The drawings of fossils all related to real objects and evidence.

I covered that in the post. Show me the bones, not the drawings. Where are those?

The artwork of a dragon did not relate to anything real that you can demonstrate, whether you say a dragon is a winged reptilian beast or Satan or a carpark perimeter bollard.

But, you see, the dragon is metaphoric - and drawing of the science faith to which you adhere? Where's the bones, Trans?

Same with applying 'God' to things that have no relevance to a religious discussion. Your effort to pull the old 'a six year old would see this (1)' (should be listed as a logical fallacy) A child would talk about the concept of a supernatural being believed to be real by someone now or in the past. Not an image or idol.

You missed the point, I think. A child could read.

I have to wonder whether these are intended as real points (in which case they are the worst arguments I have heard - even the one on a Forum long long ago where it was argued that the earth was the center of the universe because all rocket launches were calculated from there or whether this was a wind - up just having a bit of fun with us, in which case We are not amused as it insults our intelligence to suppose we would fall for it.

1. Micro and macro. Things change. Not a problem Biblically speaking. Ramapithicus? Australopithecus? Lucy? Piltdown? Pepper moth? Those are problems, but not with the Bible. They are only disagreements, not debunking. Oh, and silly, but that's not a problem, now is it, Trans? No. Wait a minute . . . . I'm hearing a distant voice. A revelation, yes! A revelation from the trinity of atheism. Science, reason and logic. I will be cast out but rise after 3 days.

2. Know your Biblical kinds. Only that is observed.

We all like a laugh but I do not appreciate my time being wasted with nonsense especially in an attempt to pull a prank.

Right. Right. Right. Right. I got a little carried away explaining the inner workings of the institution to Alex. I've been warned.

(1) the "It's Obvious" gambit.

Apparently not.

Good posts out to be why you are here,otherwise you're wasting everyone's time. The bones?We do need to have a little trust that when fossil bones are published they are real things, not imagination. I heard the fossils of Lucy are in South of Africa. I could find out where the bones of Tiktaalik are kept, but would that tell you anything more than the drawings do? If you think they are a lie, the fossils could have been faked. But fortunately the ones that prove speciation - the whale - are easy. There is a skeleton in the Natural history museum,London. I have seen it.

The dragon being metaphorical means 'Not true'.Show me the dragon bones. An adult can see it - if it pointed out to them. Whether a child could see it or not is beside the point. The point with your 'problems'with various fossils, the fake of Piltdown man (a fake exposed by science, and swallowed rather by laypersons and the press (like Nebraska man or that Chine combined fossil) and with pepper moth - what your problem is with that I don't know. The problem is rather with some Creationists who denied the adaptation of the grounds that the Moths do not naturally get taped to trees, while others accept evolutionary change so long as they stay moths, or apes or Pakicetus, and do not evolve into whales. But the cetan sequence is evidence of speciation even if a child could not see that that the flippers skeletal structure shows they adapted from legs.

Biblical kinds fails there, too as a child could see that whales and porpoises were obviously fish. Except they aren't. There's the problem with going by what seems obvious to the eye rather than by what science discovers. Whales are mammals. As you say, apparently not so obvious.

Creationists once said that archaeopteryx was 'obviously' a lizard. It had no feathers. The impression of them was either a mistake or fake. When more fossils were discovered and feathered dinosaurs were shown to be a thing, they changed their tune and claimed Archaeopteryx was 'obviously' a 'True bird' when obviously there are lizardlike features. It is a transitional form. A child could see it. The problem is with Creationism, Biblical kinds, and the Bible.

P.s My bad, Not south Africa
The “real” Lucy is stored in a specially constructed safe in the Paleoanthropology Laboratories of the National Museum of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Because of the rare and fragile nature of many fossils, including hominids, molds are often made of the original fossils.

About 60 specimens of Tiktaalik roseae and 120 other specimens from the High Arctic were returned to Canada this week. They were studied for a decade in the labs of co-discoverers Neil Shubin, from the University of Chicago, and Ted Daeschler, from Drexel University in Philadephia. The fossils will now be stored at the Canadian Museum of Nature‘s Natural Heritage Campus in Gatineau, Quebec.

[Data]

Good posts out to be why you are here, otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.

I respond in kind. I don't take the proposition that evolution debunks the Bible seriously and I know there isn't anyone that can demonstrate otherwise.

The bones? We do need to have a little trust that when fossil bones are published they are real things, not imagination.

If only I weren't censored in the name of political correctness out of pretense. How do I maneuver politely through the landscape? Pay attention to me and respond in kind. You don't need drawings, bones or fossils. You have living examples of your ideology through the imagination of others. They get paid for towing the line. For research and discovery. Publishing and tenure wouldn't be possible otherwise. And these people have a long history of similar nonsense motivated by racism and eugenics. When the necessity for that nonsense dissipates or, pun intended, evolves, the history is swept under the rug and a new version of the nonsense is spoon-fed to the masses. They need to believe it for whatever obvious justification required by the current zeitgeist. The contributions of Aristotle, Anaximander, Anaxagoras and Empedocles aren't even known and celebrated by most because the timing wasn't right until the industrial revolution.

A drawing can show anything you like. It isn't bound by reality but rather imagination. Fossils don't demonstrate evolution because the process is allegedly much slower. Living organisms evolving within the boundaries of the Biblical kind are obviously not in conflict with the Bible. The boundaries of the Biblical kind, which differs from the biological term of the same, are constituted by the ability to reproduce fertile offspring. That is what we have always observed in nature. No one has ever observed anything other than that. You know if you plant grass seeds, grass will grow. You know if you are expecting a child it isn't going to be a Bonomo. Ever. Science is observation, ideally. Not concluded upon the speculation. So, why, otherwise, the pretense? What are the steps of the scientific method? Just for clarification, to reiterate, animals change. Not a problem. No debunk. Animals don't change into something else. Not a problem. Never been observed. Similarities in the appearance of simian and human skulls don't constitute a conflict if humans themselves are alleged to be simian. The question is can they produce fertile offspring together? If they can then it fits the Biblical narrative.

It's a smokescreen. Arguing about the details is a pointless and silly distraction.