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]

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

Fine. "I'm a biblical apologist."

Then you should know the dictionary definition of the word evidence is: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" and the dictionary definition of the word truth is: "a fact or belief that is accepted as true;" given that how is evidence supposed to mean anything other than faith? Here is evidence for, and here is evidence against. It means nothing.

You're using the same equivocation and slippery slope dodge behind most apologetic arguments. If you can argue that there's some sort of "interpretation" required, then yours, no matter how facile, is as good as anyone else's, no matter how robust. It's the other side of the same coin as "the Bible can be made to say anything."

No, far from it. I'm saying there are only two possible ways to interpret anything. Right or wrong. They both have variations but all either are right or wrong.

For example, Matthew was the only one to mention dead people emerging from their graves upon Jesus' death. It is assumed that these resurrected dead were walking around.

The omission of the dead people emerging from the graves by the other writers does not, of course, mean anything. Matthew was the first gospel to be written. In De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome says: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed." So, this (Matthew having been the first gospel) might be a reason for the others having not included the dead people emerging from their graves.

Any serious scholar of the Bible could tell you that at Matthew 27:52-53 the Greek egeiro means simply raised up rather than resurrected back to life, and in addition to this "they" (meaning the bodies that were walking around) is a pronoun, and in Greek all pronouns have gender and "they" is masculine whereas bodies" (the bodies that were lifted up) is in the neuter. They are not the same.

Adam Clarke: "It is difficult to account for the transaction mentioned in verses 52 and 53. Some have thought that these two verses have been introduced into the text of Matthew from the gospel of the Nazarenes, others think the simple meaning is this: - by the earthquake several bodies that had been buried were thrown up and exposed to view, and continued above ground till after Christ's resurrection, and were seen by many persons in the city."

Theobald Daechsel's translation: "And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up."

Johannes Greber's translation: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city."

The patterns we see in phylogenetic relationships are just as accurately termed "evidence" as cladistic data derived from measurements of fossils or pictures of the fossils themselves. Defining a set of rules for the analysis doesn't somehow deny the evidentiary power of the results of that analysis.

In other words, infallible? You see a fossil, you say - what? "That looks like this other one so they are the same?" or "That looks like the other thing so it must have evolved from that?" Show me. Show me a fossil comparison that does the latter.

Define cladistic data, species and hypothesizing. Keeping in mind that this is a thread about how science allegedly debunks, not disagrees with, the Bible.

The power of the various types of phylogenetic analyses is that evolution is by far the most plausible explanation for the consistent patterns we see across multiple methods that should otherwise be unrelated. You can't accuarately claim that the results of that analysis (and presumably now molecular analyses) are "just bones." In comparison, "according to their kinds" doesn't accurately describe evolutionary relationships unless it's understood as the loosest sort of allegory. Is that your argument? That "according to their kinds" is such loose allegory that it's meaningless? Otherwise, it's still you that's simply dismissing the power of scientific evidence with nothing but your assertion that it's meaningless. Remember, it's your argument that we can't do better than "according to their kinds."

That's my argument? Who said that was my argument? What I'm saying is very simple. If it's true it can be observed. If it isn't it can't and has never been observed. Seeing tracks in the sand of a giant penguin doesn't mean that a giant penguin made the tracks. Show me where there is something that disagrees with the Biblical kind. Show me evidence that isn't speculative. That is based upon, not speculation but observation.

It's terrible You seriously want to interpret Matt. 27 13 as an earthquake shaking the graves open and the corpses sitting up? Matthew says that the saints - not just anybody - got up and walked in the streets and were seen by people in Jerusalem.

You want to find a natural explanation for that? It requires such a massive mistake of a natural event and garbling to make it a miracle that it argues why we should believe anything in the Bible.

Personally since this is found only in Matthew, I think he made it up to try to explain why Jesus'sacrifice did not resurrect all the worthy. But if you are trying to debunk the Bible, God and Christianity by making it all mistaken observations of natural events, you're going the right way about it.

Terrible apologetics, Data, terrible. Giant Penguin tracks don't mean a giant penguin made them? If they were tracks that matched a penguin but giant size, it would be evidence that is what it was. Just as the footprint tracks of Afarensis shows they could walk like humans, not shamble like apes. You are doing the classic denialist thing of putting possible doubt (without any evidence for it) over the strong evidence for.

Look chum, if you park you car and find it gone, what are the reasons? It was taken away by a thief or officially. You check with the car park office - they'd know if it had been towed away. So a thief took it is the best explanation. You can't disprove that a Flying saucer hooked it up with a tractor beam, but is anyone going to make that a credible theory? You know how it works; why can't you apply it to anything that undermines the Bible?

You do yourself and your case no favours by dickering about definitions. The methods are known, understood and used. You have NO evidence, and exhibit lack of understanding of the evidence and a disinclination to even want to. Only a desire to try to shoehorn evidence for natural events into the Bible, which it clearly doesn't.

[TRANSPONDER]

2.I have already explained this. The evidence is in support for Evolution. And Evolution debunks the idea that Yahweh created two Earthly Golems into which after he spelled life through a magical incantation.

We're done. Thanks.

Oh that's fine. You have tried to fight your way out of a cleartly better case for evolution than you have against it - in fact nothing but denial. We have been so patient trying to answer your questions and quibbles and in the end you have no answer but to refuse further discussion. I hate to say it, but have you any idea how bad you look and how badly your case failed?

But take hart, Data pal. Nobody is blaming you. This is what a denialist Belief...shall we say... does to people. You are not to blame for what evolution -denial (apparently Biblically based, but you know best) any more than a person is to blame for catching a disease.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #125]

Looks like we've both nothing more to say, then. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and hearing mine. Have a great day!

If POI is disinclined to go further on the Exodus, I'll be happy to take you on. Mind, I have never said Exodus was slam dunk debunked by science the way Genesis is. In fact I began by assuming it happened, give or take a miracle. After all, there were plenty of "Perfectly Natural Explanations" (1) like the parting of the Red Sea was low tide and the Hebrews waded through the mud. Though why the Chariot wing of the Pharonic army couldn't catch them isn't explained. But then Bible Excusers rarely think it through.

Anywhoo.... the problems with Exodus have gradually appeared and are calling the thing into question. It is noit a slam - dunk, but a matter of increasing doubt. Let's be clear about this. Appeal to 'you can't be 100% certain' is not really a good excuse. The more problems, the more the smart money goes on 'Not credible'

(1) does that make a catchy acronym? PNE...maybe... But it's like the Black Sea Flood apologetic. It happened, but it debunks the Biblical version. It wasn't global, didn't do what God intended it to do and is no miracle.

We keep going in circles here. My position is that such a large, claimed event would leave behind some stuff. Where is this stuff? The claim is that millions inhabited a region for hundreds of years. Hence, my position is that the "silence is deafening".

From what I understand there are at least two main time periods scholars are trying to locate the Exodus in. Surely, if you are so strong on your view of the Exodus not happening you’d be aware of that. One of those times seems to have a decent silence of evidence; the other seems to have more possible evidence. This isn’t science debunking the Exodus, but debating it. If you can show there is no scholarly debate, then you’d have something. But trying to turn it into “you can’t prove the Exodus” is shifting the goalposts because that wasn’t the discussion. The question is if science disproves or proves the Exodus. You say it disproves. I say it doesn’t do either.

And when you are ready to rationally support your interpretation of a particular Biblical passage, we’ll be here.

Of course there is debate. There is debate about Gravity, but nobody denies it. There is debate about Quantum but (though we don't see it) science has shown it.

Exodus has problems. The main one being that it has to happen after the Hyksos time, as Egypt didn't use chariots before them. After then Egypt controlled Sinai and Canaan. There is no way the Exodus could have had a free hand in Canaan the way it is represented. I see only one possible window, but that's my personal view. There are other problems, from a total lack of an enslaved people in the records (apologists have to appeal to a conspiracy of silence) and I see the Philistine problem. The Exodus had to happen before the Ramessids, and the Merneptah stele says they were in Canaan at a time before the Philistines were settled in Gaza. Which is ok until we read that the exodus avoided Gaza because of trouble in the land of the Philistines - who weren't there, yet.

The problems mount up until one had to doubt the Exodus is even possible. Not just no evidence, but no way it could have happened - not as the Bible reads, anyway. Perhaps our pal Data would like to make it fit a natural event. I suggest the expulsion of the Hyksos, but garbled in a much later write -up.

[TRANSPONDER]

Evolution of humans from previous humanoids forms.

These images show drawings of skulls that look similar. Humans aren't simians but they are classified by science as apes. The Bible says that humans are one created kind and apes are another, correct? If the Bible is right, according to their kind, apes can't reproduce fertile offspring with humans. Does science debunk that and if so, where is the evidence of their fertile offspring?

It sounds like you are misunderstanding evolution - theory isna Creationist - taught way. Evolution does not proceed through interbreeding with other species but by change within species. The theory is that that apes diversified into various kinds of Hominids of which just one - ourselves - survives. The Neanderthals and Denisovians never made it (perhaps just as well - given how Bible reading Europeans treated other races). In fact I've been looking into ring species (increased evolutionary divergence through sub =species) and I wonder whether Neanderthals with whom Cro- Magnons interbred weren't rather a sub -species. But Anyway, this is a problem Withing evolution not a problem With evolution. Stop this Creationist - denial business of pointing to unknowns and pretending they upset evolution.

I'd also argue that your denial that a chronological sequence of those humaoid skulls (in different strata, you don't find the ape humans in later strata than the human humans) fits into an evolution, like all the other species, just as we saw with the cetan sequence which you purported to not 'see' was as good evidence of speciation as anyone without a mind welded closed by Faith could ask.

Transponder, you are talking to a wall. You might as well be debating Kirk Cameron, who shares a similar misunderstanding of what this science actually teaches.

I know. One always hopes they will see reason, but if not it's ok. It's why I reasoned long ago that the point was not to persuade the other side, but to present the better case to those looking in. It's why I came here looking for a a wider exposure to the public mind which might still be open, and is why I have resumed with my former forum as they seem to better than 33 browzers maximum. But the idea is to get the message out through the browsers, not to convert those with their fingers in their ears.

[POI]

and is why I have resumed with my former forum as they seem to better than 33 browzers maximum.

Please PM me the location. I much prefer Christian sites, as to avoid the echo chamber here, with other like-minded folks. The last Christian forum I was involved with shut down the apologetics section after about 3 years of intense exchange. I then came here. But yea, less action here

[TRANSPONDER]

and is why I have resumed with my former forum as they seem to better than 33 browzers maximum.

Please PM me the location. I much prefer Christian sites, as to avoid the echo chamber here, with other lik e-minded folks. The last Christian forum I was involved with shut down the apologetics section after about 3 years of intense exchange. I then came here. But yea, less action here

Done. In fact I'd be glad to see any of our pals - atheists or theist -over at City Data.

So this doesn't turn into a personal chat, this might be a fun watch. Ok It's Ray Comfort who is a crafty and exploitative (aggressively targeting those who might be easily bamboozled) and is dishonest too (1) and is a bad apologist but is very crafty too. But just the first one (Earth hangs upon nothing) is an interesting example of 'science in the Bible' (Quran does that too, and just as poorly) which not science debunks the Bible but Bible claims do not stand up too well.

Let's enjoy it together



A lot of these 'Scientific facts in the Bible' sound familiar. Ray may have originated them or he may have borrowed them. But apart from the poetic similes that sound vaguely similar,like stretching out the heavens like a curtain (which was the common ancient belief in a sky -dome) tries to match it to the expanding universe. But of course, if the Bible said 'The Universe does not expand' then that scientific fact (expanding universe) would be denied on the grounds "I don't see it". We know that evidence only is accepted if it supports the Bible. If it undermined it, it is denied.

I'm reminded of one Quran proof - the knocking star. This is supposed to be a pulsar. But Pulsars rotate, they do not knock. The Knocking comes from the radio telescope signal turning a light blip into a sound blip. In fact the passage relates (as i read it) to a retributive spirit coming to knock at the door. But this illustrates the way 'sounds vaguely like' becomes Scientific Fact in a Holy Book.

As a matter of fact I have one of my own which I don't know that anyone else has mentioned - the circleo f the earth. Supposed to mean that The Bible knew the earth was round. But in fact describes a flat circle (ringed with mountains). I argue that the term 'chwug' describes a flat circles especially as the terms for compasses (Meshwuggah or something like) appears in the Bible. If a sphere was meant the term 'Dur' (ball) would have been used.

Interestingly the video says that literary style dates it to 6000 B.C Exilic Babylon. Just when I propose Genesis and Exodus were written, because they use Mesopotamian material. E.g the Flood and 'Sargon in the Bulrushes' for Moses. I also strongly suspect that the writers used a history of the Hyksos expulsion for the Exodus. It was just a vague idea until I saw that Josephus (quoting Manetho) equates the Hyksos with the Jews. But nobody else so far as I know has suggested that Ahmose I kicking the 'shepherd kings' out of the Delta was turned into Moses leading the Israelites out of Goshen.

(1) notably when his idiotic argument from designed banana was debunked he tried to pretend it had been a comedy spoof.

[POI]

One always hopes they will see reason, but if not it's ok.

Once Data gave the following reply, I knew it was a lost cause (post 77) --> "Fish make fish. Not monkey-squirrel-fish-frogs. That seems silly? Yeah. Because it is."

[POI]

and is why I have resumed with my former forum as they seem to better than 33 browzers maximum.

Please PM me the location. I much prefer Christian sites, as to avoid the echo chamber here, with other lik e-minded folks. The last Christian forum I was involved with shut down the apologetics section after about 3 years of intense exchange. I then came here. But yea, less action here

Done. In fact I'd be glad to see any of our pals - atheists or theist -over at City Data.

So this doesn't turn into a personal chat, this might be a fun watch. Ok It's Ray Comfort who is a crafty and exploitative (aggressively targeting those who might be easily bamboozled) and is dishonest too (1) and is a bad apologist but is very crafty too. But just the first one (Earth hangs upon nothing) is an interesting example of 'science in the Bible' (Quran does that too, and just as poorly) which not science debunks the Bible but Bible claims do not stand up too well.

Let's enjoy it together



(1) notably when his idiotic argument from designed banana was debunked he tried to pretend it had been a comedy spoof.

Ray Comfort brings up quite the question....

Is he ignorant, deceptive, or maybe a bit of both?

[TRANSPONDER]

and is why I have resumed with my former forum as they seem to better than 33 browzers maximum.

Please PM me the location. I much prefer Christian sites, as to avoid the echo chamber here, with other lik e-minded folks. The last Christian forum I was involved with shut down the apologetics section after about 3 years of intense exchange. I then came here. But yea, less action here

Done. In fact I'd be glad to see any of our pals - atheists or theist -over at City Data.

So this doesn't turn into a personal chat, this might be a fun watch. Ok It's Ray Comfort who is a crafty and exploitative (aggressively targeting those who might be easily bamboozled) and is dishonest too (1) and is a bad apologist but is very crafty too. But just the first one (Earth hangs upon nothing) is an interesting example of 'science in the Bible' (Quran does that too, and just as poorly) which is not science debunks the Bible but Bible claims do not stand up too well.

Let's enjoy it together



(1) notably when his idiotic argument from designed banana was debunked he tried to pretend it had been a comedy spoof.

Ray Comfort brings up quite the question....

Is he ignorant, deceptive, or maybe a bit of both?

It is a question that bothers me more than the apologetics because - as I have said at times - the debate is over (aside bothersome details, like the Shroud ) and the only problem is getting the result generally accepted. Evolution is true, the Bible is not. I have wondered how much these people come up with their own arguments and how much is lifted from apologetics sites - not that there is anything wrong about that - I refer to experts all the time. I am an expert in nothing, other than dilatory tactics when I should be getting on with some chores.

"I have been sent back - until my task is done....I never did the washing -up". (Gandalf)

I have often wondered whether the apologetics are wrong out of ignorance or dishonesty. In fact it doesn't matter as (and I found this in the UFO world, too) Fake facts were ok if they served to convince others of what they knew was true (on Faith/Belief) anyway. Facts, science and evidence is only useful if it supports the belief. If it doesn't, it is worthless.

Axiom or maybe not. "If science debunks the Bible, it is merely human opinion; if it supports the Bible, even if the science is misquoted, it becomes Gospel truth".

Have you never seen when an apologetic was made...I'll refer to the precedent case - Gould on calling evolution a 'Fairy -tale'. We pointed out that this did not mean that the evolutionist had debunked evolution but that the popular idea , Chimp to Ape via a 'missing link' was ..well, a fairy tale and the actual process was far more complex and missing links were more mental markers in a continual evolutionary process than sudden leaps from one transitional form to another. But for 88 pages, the apologist kept insisting that Gould meant what he claimed he meant even when we showed him that he meant something else.

Classic quotemining out of context - to fit the Belief that was there. Classic denialist method.

[Difflugia]

given that how is evidence supposed to mean anything other than faith?

You're equivocating on the meaning of faith. Even if we accept that faith can somehow apply to the evaluation of evidence, we're defining the word differently than a Christian does for her faith in Jesus and the truth of the Bible.

Here is evidence for, and here is evidence against. It means nothing.

You've been given evidence for evolution. You're simply asserting that there is evidence against it. What "means nothing" isn't the state of the evidence, but your empty assertion.

You're using the same equivocation and slippery slope dodge behind most apologetic arguments. If you can argue that there's some sort of "interpretation" required, then yours, no matter how facile, is as good as anyone else's, no matter how robust. It's the other side of the same coin as "the Bible can be made to say anything."

No, far from it. I'm saying there are only two possible ways to interpret anything. Right or wrong. They both have variations but all either are right or wrong.

If that's what you meant us to conclude from your assertion about evidence, it's a non sequitur. The fact that one's conclusions can be either right or wrong has nothing to do with the value of evidence. Your statement was that "evidence doesn't mean anything."

For example, Matthew was the only one to mention dead people emerging from their graves upon Jesus' death. It is assumed that these resurrected dead were walking around.

How does this apply either to your assertion that evidence is meaningless or the context of evolution in which you made it?

The patterns we see in phylogenetic relationships are just as accurately termed "evidence" as cladistic data derived from measurements of fossils or pictures of the fossils themselves. Defining a set of rules for the analysis doesn't somehow deny the evidentiary power of the results of that analysis.

In other words, infallible?

Who said that? Now you've moved onto a straw man? I'm starting to feel like you're playing apologetics Bingo with us.

You see a fossil, you say - what? "That looks like this other one so they are the same?" or "That looks like the other thing so it must have evolved from that?"

It's telling that you imagine the scientific process to be so subjective. Have you never seen the cladistic analyses of fossils? The overall method is to define a set of "characters" of the fossils that can be represented numbers, giving a matrix of arrays that can be used in turn to define a matrix of "distance" calculations. Those matrices are then arranged into binary trees that hopefully match evolutionary relationships. The method is defined in order to minimize or eliminate subjective judgements, particularly in the generation of the matrices and resulting tree. Once the characters are defined and measured, the rest is just mathematical rules.

Show me.

Here are several studies involving cladistic analyses of fossils:

• "Cladistic analysis of extant and fossil African papionins using craniodental data"—Table 4 lists the characters used for the analysis.
• "Cladistic analysis and a revised classification of fossil and recent mysticetes"—Appendix 2 lists and describes the characters used. Appendix 3 is the matrix of numerical character data.
• "Cladistic analysis of dasyuromorphian (Marsupialia) phylogeny using cranial and dental characters"—Table 1 is the matrix of numerical character data. Appendix 1 is the list and descriptions of the characters.

If you are actually willing to interact with these, I can find more.

Define cladistic data, species and hypothesizing. Keeping in mind that this is a thread about how science allegedly debunks, not disagrees with, the Bible.

We're only three iterations into our exchange and you've already devolved into word games. I might be close to a Bingo.

Remember, it's your argument that we can't do better than "according to their kinds."

That's my argument? Who said that was my argument?

You did:

Biblical "Kinds", like Biblical morality, is the best that uninformed guesswork might come up with, but we can do better.

No. You can't.

What I'm saying is very simple. If it's true it can be observed. If it isn't it can't and has never been observed. Seeing tracks in the sand of a giant penguin doesn't mean that a giant penguin made the tracks.

Is this your new goalpost, then? You're defining "debunk" for us such that it fails on "anything is possible?" Since the evidence for evolution is compelling enough that it's on the order of regular-sized penguins (and we can see penguins just up the beach), I'll assume that your "giant penguins" are intended as hyperbole. Still, it's possible that the penguin tracks were made by something other than the penguins over there. Is that incompatible with your personal definition of "debunk?" Is that the hill you want to stand on? Or do you not have anything better upon which to base biblical integrity than "anything is possible?"

Show me where there is something that disagrees with the Biblical kind.

Molecular (DNA) data can be analyzed in the same way that cladistic data can. These data can be accessed here. Such a large dataset has confirmed that there are no discontinuities that would allow the phrase "created according to their kinds" to be true in any meaningful way.

Show me evidence that isn't speculative. That is based upon, not speculation but observation.

I would assume that you're willing to accept that cladistic and molecular data both qualify as "observations." If you're simply going to deny this, then "Bingo!"