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]

We already know the degrees of denial about Genesis. The 'scientific' evidence is that the events never happened, nor could happen.

Do we? What evidence? Instead of making vague unsupported claims, demonstrate the evidence. Let's just start there.

Cosmological evidence that the earth was not created before the sun and stars, the order of creation debunked by geology and evolutionary biology, the flood and Ark debunked by geology showing there was no total global Flood and an arkful of pairs of critters would not work.

Either you accept the science in which case you should logically accept that Genesis is wrong (hint, metaphor will not help) or you deny science in which case there is no point in discussion

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.

Never mind the talk about bias or you being victimised. I am only showing that the evidence is what counts and is all that counts. You wanted bones and where they were, I showed you two locations of Australopithecus and Tiktaalik and even the discovery of the fossils. The drawings show the evolutionary relationship. You dismiss this as 'drawings' and you just show a mental block and refusal to understand the evidence. It is not unfamiliar; it is known that anti -evolutionists do not understand the evidence and do not want to.

This is shown by your talk of 'can they produce fertile offspring together?' Aside that Creationists seem to think that the evolutionary process proceeds by interbreeding between species, which it doesn't, the question of interbreeding between related species or sub - species is a fair one, but is nothing to do with the evolutionary process. It is 'pointless and silly distraction' in the debate about evolution debunking Genesis. That said, while African and Indian elephants have trouble interbreeding (rather surprisingly) plains and forest elephants can. And the evidence of DNA is that Cro Magnon humans could and did interbreed with Neanderthals and Denisovians, so whether they are different species at all might be a debating question. But is is an irrelevant quibble if made part of the evolution -debate. Creationists also confuse problems within evolution -theory with problems With Evolution -theory.

Biblical 'kinds' I have shown is inadequate. It may fit speciation verified by morphology, genetics and biology, or it may not, such as assuming that whales are mammals, not a kind of fish, which is what your child might assume. Biblical "Kinds", like Biblical morality, is the best that uninformed guesswork might come up with, but we can do better.

[Data]

Never mind the talk about bias or you being victimized.

I never allow myself to be victimized, I have better sense than that. I didn't join a religion. I didn't believe evolution taught in school.

I am only showing that the evidence is what counts and is all that counts.

No.

You wanted bones and where they were, I showed you two locations of Australopithecus and Tiktaalik and even the discovery of the fossils.

They don't mean anything. I've demonstrated this. You don't need them.

The drawings show the evolutionary relationship.

See above.

You dismiss this as 'drawings' and you just show a mental block and refusal to understand the evidence. It is not unfamiliar; it is known that anti -evolutionists do not understand the evidence and do not want to.

Evidence doesn't mean anything. You have to observe. You have to repeat.

This is shown by your talk of 'can they produce fertile offspring together?'

In order to debunk the Bible evolution needs to demonstrate the observable proposition by the Bible as false. It can't. In order to establish evolution, beyond what the Bible will allow, in order to debunk it you have to have more than a drawing, a fossil or bones that you speculate may indicate evolution beyond what the Bible will allow. It can't. It doesn't.

Aside that Creationists [snip]

I don't care about creationists. You're talking to me right now. Creationism is nonsense, no matter if you look at if from a Biblical or scientific perspective.

That said, while African and Indian elephants have trouble interbreeding (rather surprisingly) plains and forest elephants can. And the evidence of DNA is that Cro Magnon humans could and did interbreed with Neanderthals and Denisovians, so whether they are different species at all might be a debating question. But is is an irrelevant quibble if made part of the evolution -debate. Creationists also confuse problems within evolution -theory with problems With Evolution -theory.

Humans can interbreed. If certain elephants can't that's a matter for science to explore. None of this debunks the Bible. I think evolution is stupid. You think Creation is stupid. That doesn't debunk them. they don't debunk one another, they only vary ideologically.

Biblical 'kinds' I have shown is inadequate. It may fit speciation verified by morphology, genetics and biology, such as whales are mammals, not fish. Which is what your child might assume. Biblical "Kinds", like Biblical morality, is the best that uninformed guesswork might come up with, but we can do better.

No. You can't.

[POI]

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

Depends on your position... Many progressive Christians have found a way to 'navigate' the truth in both Evolution and Genesis. Others have to reject evolutionary theory because it does conflict with their current interpretation of Genesis. And then there is you, who does not even understand what evolutionary biology teaches, (i.e.) where left off in post 77.

[TRANSPONDER]

Never mind the talk about bias or you being victimized.

I never allow myself to be victimized, I have better sense than that. I didn't join a religion. I didn't believe evolution taught in school.

I am only showing that the evidence is what counts and is all that counts.

No.

You wanted bones and where they were, I showed you two locations of Australopithecus and Tiktaalik and even the discovery of the fossils.

They don't mean anything. I've demonstrated this. You don't need them.

The drawings show the evolutionary relationship.

See above.

You dismiss this as 'drawings' and you just show a mental block and refusal to understand the evidence. It is not unfamiliar; it is known that anti -evolutionists do not understand the evidence and do not want to.

Evidence doesn't mean anything. You have to observe. You have to repeat.

This is shown by your talk of 'can they produce fertile offspring together?'

In order to debunk the Bible evolution needs to demonstrate the observable proposition by the Bible as false. It can't. In order to establish evolution, beyond what the Bible will allow, in order to debunk it you have to have more than a drawing, a fossil or bones that you speculate may indicate evolution beyond what the Bible will allow. It can't. It doesn't.

Aside that Creationists [snip]

I don't care about creationists. You're talking to me right now. Creationism is nonsense, no matter if you look at if from a Biblical or scientific perspective.

That said, while African and Indian elephants have trouble interbreeding (rather surprisingly) plains and forest elephants can. And the evidence of DNA is that Cro Magnon humans could and did interbreed with Neanderthals and Denisovians, so whether they are different species at all might be a debating question. But is is an irrelevant quibble if made part of the evolution -debate. Creationists also confuse problems within evolution -theory with problems With Evolution -theory.

Humans can interbreed. If certain elephants can't that's a matter for science to explore. None of this debunks the Bible. I think evolution is stupid. You think Creation is stupid. That doesn't debunk them. they don't debunk one another, they only vary ideologically.

Biblical 'kinds' I have shown is inadequate. It may fit speciation verified by morphology, genetics and biology, such as whales are mammals, not fish. Which is what your child might assume. Biblical "Kinds", like Biblical morality, is the best that uninformed guesswork might come up with, but we can do better.

No. You can't.

Yes I can. We can. You seen unwilling or unable to put evidence together. You demanded support for actual 'bones' rather than drawings. I referenced. The drawings represent actual evidence and the rel;ationships are shown schematically. If you refuse to understand, that doesn't make a case for you, only denial.

I referred to the cetan sequence which is evidence of evolution before our very eyes - the Observation you asked for. In whales that exist right now, the front flippers show arm and fingers that bespeak a land origin. That is backed up by a slam dunk fossil sequence, including even the evolution of the breathing from nostrils at the snout to a blow-hole in the head. Not to mention a toothed whale also evolving baleen.

The evidence is there in spades. Whatever your view of religion, I see no point in your science - denial. I can understand you wanting evidence - at one time I had doubts myself - but pushing it away when presented shows that you have a problem. And nobody is making you the victim of wilful ignorance and denial than you.

Chum, you refusing to understand or accept the evidence doesn't hurt me at all - the evidence is there for anyone to see who cares about evidence. Your denial hurts only you, not me, not evolution and not science.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Depends on your position... Many progressive Christians have found a way to 'navigate' the truth in both Evolution and Genesis. Others have to reject evolutionary theory because it does conflict with their current interpretation of Genesis. And then there is you, who does not even understand what evolutionary biology teaches, (i.e.) where left off in post 77.

Yes. Christian evolutionists or evolutionary Christians exist and show that Christianity is not obliged to reject Evolution - just to say 'That is how God did it'. It is why I refer to it as Genesis - literalism as neither the Bible or Christianity needs to reject evolution, but only those who insist that Genesis is true. Which clearly, on the evidence, it isn't, unless one denies science.

But then I say the discussion becomes pointless (1). The debate uses science to make the case on both sides, to dismiss the science means that the Biblical case depends on faithbased denial. A bit of an Axiom - the Theist who dismisses science and logic as 'human opinion' has no business appealing to science or logic in their discussion after that.

(1) Translated from atheist to English '"Lost to creationism"

[POI]

You seen unwilling or unable to put evidence together.

Bingo!

[Data]

Yes I can. We can. You seen unwilling or unable to put evidence together. You demanded support for actual 'bones' rather than drawings. I referenced. The drawings represent actual evidence and the rel;ationships are shown schematically. If you refuse to understand, that doesn't make a case for you, only denial.

Okay. You showed me bones. I don't recall that, but now what?

I referred to the cetan sequence which is evidence of evolution before our very eyes - the Observation you asked for.

I don't recall that. What did they change into?

In whales that exist right now, the front flippers show arm and fingers that bespeak a land origin.

Finally. Now we have evidence. Evidence that whales have flippers? Did you see them change? Did you see a whale on land? What is a whale? What did it change into? A whale? Did it give you the finger? A beak on a bird, a bug on bark is evidence of a beak on a bird and a bug on bark. You can read into that any crazy you want, but you can't observe the crazy. And you can't shove it down my throat. In the name of racism, eugenics, science or Darwinian evolution. It would be like me showing you the bones of a deformed human skull and insisting it were evidence of extraterrestrial beings.

Things change. Evolution is another word for things changing. Not a problem with the Bible student. Things change into something else? Now you have a problem. Your solution? Make stuff up by looking at bones, drawings and things changing within the parameters set by the Biblical kind. Show me the bones? What do you see? Bones.

That is backed up by a slam dunk fossil sequence, including even the evolution of the breathing from nostrils at the snout to a blow-hole in the head. Not to mention a toothed whale also evolving baleen.

Anything you want it to be. The imagination is limitless.

The evidence is there in spades. Whatever your view of religion, I see no point in your science - denial.

I showed you the video.

I can understand you wanting evidence - at one time I had doubts myself - but pushing it away when presented shows that you have a problem. And nobody is making you the victim of wilful ignorance and denial than you.

Oh. Well, that's too bad, because to me science is a weatherman. Better carry an umbrella. You. You make science a religious joke. And I like that, because there are a lot of people weeded out by that sort of thing. Religion and fake science.

Chum, you refusing to understand or accept the evidence doesn't hurt me at all - the evidence is there for anyone to see who cares about evidence. Your denial hurts only you, not me, not evolution and not science.

Uh-huh.

[TRANSPONDER]

Weather is much more predictable than it used to be. Better than guesses or prophecy.

As to the evidence the markers are there with Tiktaalik. It is a transitional form. The rock where it was found is specific for hot marshy terrain with rivers. It tells us how it lived. We do not need to see it hunting shrimp to know this, and we can do without "I can't see it" as a disputation.

The cetan sequence gives is most of the pieces. The morphology shows a land animal adapting to a water environment until it stays there. We do not need to watch it catching fish to know this .In fact just going back to the Miocene to watch it swimming about would tell us nothing.



The arm and hand arrangement is just the present culmination of this process seen in the fossil record but that alone without a single fossil would tell us it had evolved from a tetrapod. Same with bird wings that have all the features of an adapted hand and arm.

I can only urge anyone who wants to dispute evolution to at least become acquainted with the evidence and how evidence is assessed (not dismiss it as "Drawings") before they try to dispute it.

[Difflugia]

Evidence doesn't mean anything.

Tell me you're a creationist without telling me you're a creationist.

but we can do better.

No. You can't.

It may seem that way when you don't know what you don't know. But anyone with access to the internet, even a sufficiently motivated creationist, has the tools available to them to change that.

[Data]

Evidence doesn't mean anything.

Tell me you're a creationist without telling me you're a creationist.

Tell me you use the word evidence without knowing what the word evidence means.

It may seem that way when you don't know what you don't know.

It may also seem that way when you do.