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?

[Data]

You're equivocating on the meaning of faith.

Give me another word for faith that means the exact same thing as 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.

How would a "Christian" define the word faith differently than an atheist scientist evaluating the evidence?

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.

No, I'm asserting that evidence is data given for or against anything. If I evaluate whether or not Christianity is accurate knowledge of the teaching of Christ, I would need evidence only of two cases against it representing that teaching. I would personally choose the immortal soul and hell. (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28; Romans 6:7; Acts 2:31 ) That I had faith in the evidence, my ability to evaluate the evidence and my conclusion wouldn't negate a different conclusion drawn by anyone else. You are asserting that my having been given evidence of evolution dictates that my conclusion must be the same as yours. There is evidence (the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) for and against everything, so evaluating the evidence for evolution doesn't dictate the conclusion conform with one or the other. For or against. In other words, your evaluation of the same evidence I evaluate doesn't mean we have to come to the same conclusion. Why would I have to point this obvious fact out to you? Because you are the one equivocating the meaning of evidence. As you also do with faith above. To you evidence is to favor information that confirms or strengthens your belief or values. Confirmation bias. To you the evaluation of the evidence for evolution means there is no evidence against it. There is always evidence for and against. You equate having evidence as meaning infallible truth rather than an objective evaluation of the data for and against. In that sense, having evidence for evolution as you present it is "nothing" to me. I'm saying I don't share your confirmation bias. Your ideological fixation. I don't blind myself to half of the evidence. I don't negate another's evaluation. I don't conform to any of that. I objectively evaluate the evidence myself. I will make the conclusion myself. Your conclusion doesn't affect mine. Your evaluation, conclusion - evidence - is nothing to me as mine should be to you.

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

You tell me. What is your conclusion on the evidence I presented the most controversial passages from the Bible? Did it affect your conclusion of the Bible? Did you reevaluate that conclusion?

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

Oh. Okay.

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.

I can't imagine why I would possibly care. Show me where microevolution disagrees with the Biblical kind. Then we're halfway there. We don't have to teach a college course on cladistic analyses. To everyone. Stop using the OP to preach evolution. Just answer the question.

[alexxcJRO]

I can't imagine why I would possibly care. Show me where microevolution disagrees with the Biblical kind. Then we're halfway there. We don't have to teach a college course on cladistic analyses. To everyone. Stop using the OP to preach evolution. Just answer the question.

1.
Q: What stops the small changes to become bigger ones when we are talking about such big time frames?

Please describe the mechanism that must be in place in order for small changes(micro-evolution) to not lead up to large changes(macro-evolution).

2.
Here is the Platypus:



Lays eggs like birds and reptiles.
Has a tail like a beaver(which is a mammel).
It has a beak just like birds.
It is otter-footed.
It has a neocortex (a region of the brain), hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands. It nurses their young with milk, secreted from the mammary glands.

Q: What kind does it belong to, huh?

[Data]

I can't imagine why I would possibly care. Show me where microevolution disagrees with the Biblical kind. Then we're halfway there. We don't have to teach a college course on cladistic analyses. To everyone. Stop using the OP to preach evolution. Just answer the question.

1.
Q: What stops the small changes to become bigger ones when we are talking about such big time frames?

Please describe the mechanism that must be in place in order for small changes(micro-evolution) to not lead up to large changes(macro-evolution).

2.
Here is the Platypus:



Lays eggs like birds and reptiles.
Has a tail like a beaver(which is a mammel).
It has a beak just like birds.
It is otter-footed.
It has a neocortex (a region of the brain), hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands. It nurses their young with milk, secreted from the mammary glands.

Q: What kind does it belong to, huh?

Not that I don't know the answer, more out of curiosity, how come you won't just answer the question in the OP? In the case of evolution, though it could be any branch of science, how does it debunk the Bible wouldn't involve faith in science, or even knowledge of science in general, but rather, where in the Bible does it create a conflict where the question of the OP can at least begin or conclude the establishment of the proposition?

[TRANSPONDER]

You're equivocating on the meaning of faith.

Give me another word for faith that means the exact same thing as 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.

How would a "Christian" define the word faith differently than an atheist scientist evaluating the evidence?

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.

No, I'm asserting that evidence is data given for or against anything. If I evaluate whether or not Christianity is accurate knowledge of the teaching of Christ, I would need evidence only of two cases against it representing that teaching. I would personally choose the immortal soul and hell. (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28; Romans 6:7; Acts 2:31 ) That I had faith in the evidence, my ability to evaluate the evidence and my conclusion wouldn't negate a different conclusion drawn by anyone else. You are asserting that my having been given evidence of evolution dictates that my conclusion must be the same as yours. There is evidence (the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) for and against everything, so evaluating the evidence for evolution doesn't dictate the conclusion conform with one or the other. For or against. In other words, your evaluation of the same evidence I evaluate doesn't mean we have to come to the same conclusion. Why would I have to point this obvious fact out to you? Because you are the one equivocating the meaning of evidence. As you also do with faith above. To you evidence is to favor information that confirms or strengthens your belief or values. Confirmation bias. To you the evaluation of the evidence for evolution means there is no evidence against it. There is always evidence for and against. You equate having evidence as meaning infallible truth rather than an objective evaluation of the data for and against. In that sense, having evidence for evolution as you present it is "nothing" to me. I'm saying I don't share your confirmation bias. Your ideological fixation. I don't blind myself to half of the evidence. I don't negate another's evaluation. I don't conform to any of that. I objectively evaluate the evidence myself. I will make the conclusion myself. Your conclusion doesn't affect mine. Your evaluation, conclusion - evidence - is nothing to me as mine should be to you.

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

You tell me. What is your conclusion on the evidence I presented the most controversial passages from the Bible? Did it affect your conclusion of the Bible? Did you reevaluate that conclusion?

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

Oh. Okay.

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.

I can't imagine why I would possibly care. Show me where microevolution disagrees with the Biblical kind. Then we're halfway there. We don't have to teach a college course on cladistic analyses. To everyone. Stop using the OP to preach evolution. Just answer the question.

Still not good apologetics, Data old chum.A synonym for Faith? Belief, Trust? The difference is not in the reliance we put into anything, but the rationale for inventing that trust.

Christianity being an accurate knowledge of the teaching of Christ ...well I might dispute that, like Jesus taught us that Sabbath worship counts less than going out to brunch with your friends, but Christianity makes a fetish of Sabbath worship even if they changed the day. But even if they really followed the poverty -stricken teachings of the Gospels (and never mind the prosperity gospel) that would mean nothing when we ask whether there is any good reason to believe the Bible in the first place.

But your attempt to wangle a draw out of the evidence for evolution defies the deductive process. It is in effect denial not just of science but of Logic and the deductive process we rely on for everything. Terrible apologetics Data, Chum, terrible.

Sorry, Don't recall your evidence on the most controversial passages on the Bible. But you are still trying to wangle a draw by saying microevolution disagrees with the Bible. It doesn't any more than speciation really disagrees with 'kinds', but Macro ( I actually saw the terms adapted as a handy differentiation of minor and major evolutionary changes - in fact, speciation) does because it says bioforms evolved over millions of years from simple forms to the diversity we have today and - if true, and on the evidence, it is - it debunks the Bible that says it was all done in 6 days, all in one go and in the wrong order, too. Genesis assumes (a reasonable uninformed guess) that greenery appeared before critters, but the evidence is that the Cambrian explosion happened before there was any vegetation on land. Why, we didn't get grass and flowers till around the Jurassic.

Just the Genesis, but 'clean hands' as the Law courts say - you find a witness telling lies about one thing, he is less credible on his other stories.

[Data]

Is there anything other than the failed metaphysical experiment of theoretical Darwinian evolution that anyone out there might propose to debunk the Bible. Anyone out there not an ideologue? Physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, oceanography, meteorology, archaeology, anthropology, economics, psychology, or sociology?

[Data]

Still not good apologetics, Data old chum.

To me it's an insult to apologetics to call what any of us here do, including myself, apologetics. We should apologize to apologetics. I don't quite understand how you propose to have the merit to judge anyone else harshly in that respect. I certainly wouldn't. The Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum is where that takes place and you aren't any more likely to see me there than the Science and Religion forum.

A synonym for Faith? Belief, Trust?

Correct. In the context of faith as "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof" I would say both apply. In science there is only trust; not belief. Faith in the context of science is trust, not belief. I trust science or the methodology it uses as much as I trust people. Which, admittedly, isn't saying much. I trust science more than I trust theology. Which, again, admittedly isn't saying much. That probably wouldn't hold water with a pedantic ideologue of atheism but I'm not particularly concerned about that. The point is, I trust Jehovah God more than myself. I trust his creation more than the observation and investigation of that creation. Thus, more than theology or science respectively.

The difference is not in the reliance we put into anything, but the rationale for inventing that trust.

What difference? Between faith and belief or trust? I would agree that rationale dictates reliance, not vice versa. I point out the subtle differences above in an anecdotal personal preference.

Christianity being an accurate knowledge of the teaching of Christ ...well I might dispute that, like Jesus taught us that Sabbath worship counts less than going out to brunch with your friends, but Christianity makes a fetish of Sabbath worship even if they changed the day.

Don't mistake my examination of Christianity as support or agreement with its current state. Christian tradition, especially since Constantine the Great. I reject it due to what it has become, accept it for what it was. As my example of hell and the immortal soul indicates. You reaffirm my point. I have the knowledge to reject Christianity on the basis of four scriptures but most atheists I have dealt with don't. They don't need it, though. They don't need the degree of knowledge I have in order to come to the right conclusion on Christianity. First of all because the conclusion of right or wrong is subjective, i.e. right or wrong for each individual doesn't constitute accurate knowledge. Your poorly constructed argument on the Sabbath is purely anecdotal but comes to the accurate conclusion. That doesn't mean Christianity is necessarily wrong for the intent and purpose of each individual. Your estimation comes to the correct conclusion using very little knowledge very little of which is accurate, but, the majority of Christians, who possess an equal degree of accurate knowledge, don't care anymore than you about accurate knowledge.

In other words, the OP didn't intend to establish nor call for a "debate" on Creation vs Evolution. I consider that debate to be stupid. Pointless and silly. Like most debates political or religious.

But even if they really followed the poverty -stricken teachings of the Gospels (and never mind the prosperity gospel) that would mean nothing when we ask whether there is any good reason to believe the Bible in the first place.

That would depend on the individual, though, again, not the intent or purpose of the OP.

But your attempt to wangle a draw out of the evidence for evolution defies the deductive process. It is in effect denial not just of science but of Logic and the deductive process we rely on for everything.

I don't trust your deductive process, logic or science much. But I think they are only misused tools in your arsenal to justify your ideology. I do wish you would produce a better argument. From my perspective it is perfectly rational for you to deny my theology, my religion, if you will, and still produce a compelling argument. I would never argue that you are in denial of the Bible as if that were some dogmatic conformities you must adhere religiously - zealously - to or be labeled anything other an ideologue.

Terrible apologetics Data, Chum, terrible.

[Data Chuckles. Yawns. Realizes he has referred to himself in the third person; at first, he is embarrassed and ashamed then it slowly, as is often the case with such things, begins to dawn on him what a useful tool illeism might be in disarming his, er, Data's objective to examine the allegedly skeptical for his own curious observation. Like egotism or insanity. Yeah. He thinks to himself, careful not to allow the tool to become reality. Again. That was a crazy ride in the dark days. Lost in "thought" Data forgets that he had chuckled earlier and so does it again. And yawns. He begins to hum a tune to himself, mistakenly thinking that Transponder has gone off on one of his sermons to the choir. The tune is the Bloodhound Gang's Along Comes Mary.][1]



[HEY! IDIOT! A voice screamed at Data. WAKE UP! What?! Precious. Golem, he thinks. To himself. Data. That is. Idiot. Not Data.]

Sorry, Don't recall your evidence on the most controversial passages on the Bible.

What?! Oh. Matthew, uh, 27:52-53.

But you are still trying to wangle a draw by saying microevolution disagrees with the Bible.

No. I never said that. I said it does agree. You know how when you make a post you can't effectively edit it? Because you read it how you think you wrote it. You have to wait a while. It's like that with ideology. You always think I say what you think I say instead of what I say. Even if what I say is meant to make sense that you could understand. When the JWs used to go off to Pioneer school one of the first things they would do is set them down and make them write down some Bible passage they had memorized the way they remember it and then compare that to what the Bible actually says. Usually much to their surprise. That's why I never intentionally memorize scripture. I use the Bible more like a telephone book or dictionary.

So, I've gotten used to the fact that militant fundamentalist atheists may only get as much as 10% of what I actually say. It's the ideology I'm always on about. That's the meaning of my silly and apparently useless literary device above. That and my own entertainment to keep me from doing the logical thing and putting my ego away. Walking away from the art of debate. For good this time! Huh?

In a time and forum far, far, far away - The Skeptic's Annotated Bible forum - there was once one who was on the Dark Side. Very strong was the Ideology in this one. I posted for about six years with this idiot who hung upon my every word but never heard one of them. Most people there knew and loathed my constant reminders of the pagan influence in Christianity. You know, the immortal soul from Socrates, trinity from Plato, Cross from Tammuz and Constantine, hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas from Saturnalia and Dickens, Easter from Astarte, the Rapture from Darby. Then one day, for some reason, though no reason that I could see, his eyes were suddenly opened and he dramatically announced to the public forum that I admitted that Christianity was pagan! Someone, an unusually reasonable atheist not particularly given to ideology responded. Yeah. So? He's been doing that for years. Or something to that effect. Buster GG . . .

[Stares off into the distant forgotten void of illusions]

Lot to read, huh? What a waste of time. It's a good thing I still have complaining about it to while away the time.

It doesn't any more than speciation really disagrees with 'kinds', but Macro ( I actually saw the terms adapted as a handy differentiation of minor and major evolutionary changes - in fact, speciation) does because it says bioforms evolved over millions of years from simple forms to the diversity we have today and - if true, and on the evidence, it is - it debunks the Bible that says it was all done in 6 days, all in one go and in the wrong order, too. Genesis assumes (a reasonable uninformed guess) that greenery appeared before critters, but the evidence is that the Cambrian explosion happened before there was any vegetation on land. Why, we didn't get grass and flowers till around the Jurassic.

Just the Genesis, but 'clean hands' as the Law courts say - you find a witness telling lies about one thing, he is less credible on his other stories.

The Bible doesn't say 6 days. More accurately it doesn't mean 6 days the way you think. Not that that makes much difference. Just that your conclusions are always drawn from an erroneous premise. But that doesn't matter. It's just ideology.

[1] Along Comes Mary

Every time I think that I'm
The only one who's lonely someone calls on me
And every now and then I spend
My time at rhyme and verse and curse those faults in me
And then along comes Mary
Mary, Mary
Then along comes Mary
Mary, Mary
And does she wanna give me kicks
And be my steady chick and give me pick of memories?
Or maybe rather gather tales from all the
Fails and tribulations no one ever sees?
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
Sweet as the punch
When vague desire is the fire in the eyes of chicks
Whose sickness is the games they play
And when the masquerade is played and neighbor folks
Make jokes as who is most to blame today
And then along comes Mary
Mary, Mary
Then along comes Mary
Mary, Mary
And does she wanna set them free
And let them see reality from where she got her name?
And will they struggle much when told that such
A tender touch of hers will make them not the same?
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
Sweet as the punch
And when the morning of the warning's passed
The gassed and flaccid kids are flung across the stars
The psychodramas and the traumas gone
The songs are left unsung and hung upon the scars
And then along comes Mary
Mary, Mary
Then along comes Mary
Mary, Mary
And does she wanna see the stains the dead remains
Of all the pains she left the night before?
Or will their wakin' eyes reflect the lies
And make them realize their urgent cry for sight no more?
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
Sweet as the punch
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
Sweet as the punch

[alexxcJRO]

I can't imagine why I would possibly care. Show me where microevolution disagrees with the Biblical kind. Then we're halfway there. We don't have to teach a college course on cladistic analyses. To everyone. Stop using the OP to preach evolution. Just answer the question.

1.
Q: What stops the small changes to become bigger ones when we are talking about such big time frames?

Please describe the mechanism that must be in place in order for small changes(micro-evolution) to not lead up to large changes(macro-evolution).

2.
Here is the Platypus:



Lays eggs like birds and reptiles.
Has a tail like a beaver(which is a mammel).
It has a beak just like birds.
It is otter-footed.
It has a neocortex (a region of the brain), hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands. It nurses their young with milk, secreted from the mammary glands.

Q: What kind does it belong to, huh?

Not that I don't know the answer, more out of curiosity, how come you won't just answer the question in the OP? In the case of evolution, though it could be any branch of science, how does it debunk the Bible wouldn't involve faith in science, or even knowledge of science in general, but rather, where in the Bible does it create a conflict where the question of the OP can at least begin or conclude the establishment of the proposition?

Again obfuscating with irrelevant things.

I have already answer your question in #post 120 of this thread.
Please answer my questions:

1.
Q: What stops the small changes to become bigger ones when we are talking about such big time frames?

Please describe the mechanism that must be in place in order for small changes(micro-evolution) to not lead up to large changes(macro-evolution).

2.
Here is the Platypus:



Lays eggs like birds and reptiles.
Has a tail like a beaver(which is a mammel).
It has a beak just like birds.
It is otter-footed.
It has a neocortex (a region of the brain), hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands. It nurses their young with milk, secreted from the mammary glands.

Q: What kind does it belong to, huh?

[Data]

Again obfuscating with irrelevant things.

I have already answer your question in #post 120 of this thread.

No, you haven't. Where in the Bible does microevolution allegedly contradict the Bible and why do you think it does?

Please answer my questions:

No. Stay on topic. Go to the Science Religion forum for a debate on evolution.

[alexxcJRO]

Again obfuscating with irrelevant things.

I have already answer your question in #post 120 of this thread.

No, you haven't. Where in the Bible does microevolution allegedly contradict the Bible and why do you think it does?

Please answer my questions:

No. Stay on topic. Go to the Science Religion forum for a debate on evolution.

I repeat Evolution which includes both micro and macro changes debunks the story that Yahweh created two Earthly golem which after imbued them with life. Debunks the idea that Yahweh created the whales before land animals.

Please answer my questions:

1.
Q: What stops the small changes to become bigger ones when we are talking about such big time frames?

Please describe the mechanism that must be in place in order for small changes(micro-evolution) to not lead up to large changes(macro-evolution).

2.
Here is the Platypus:



Lays eggs like birds and reptiles.
Has a tail like a beaver(which is a mammel).
It has a beak just like birds.
It is otter-footed.
It has a neocortex (a region of the brain), hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands. It nurses their young with milk, secreted from the mammary glands.

Q: What kind does it belong to, huh?

[Data]

I repeat

I almost never put people on ignore. I think everyone should have a voice to be listened to. On this forum, for whatever reason, my patience in that regard is rapidly diminishing. Repeat it one more time and you will join the other Wise guy on that list.

Please do it. Save me the time.

Or answer the stupid question.