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]

Don't you dare play the Moderator. Evolution is smack on topic. Topic is science debunks the Bible. Evolution (and Geology and Palaeontology) debunks Genesis. Querying of the science throws up discussion. Relevant to topic. Don't try that again.

Thank you.3 seconds was enough.

But here is the trashing of 'Expelled'. For anyone to see (even if you don't) that it was trash.



Ben Stein is a terrible apologist. The Rudy Giuliani of Creationism. But to help Thunderfoot out 'Evolution' (pronounced "Evilooshun") in Creationist terms does not mean the scientific explanation for the diversity of life but an atheist theory of creation of everything that denies God doing it. That's why origin of Life, the universe and even Physics gets dragged into it. But like Thunderfoot says, These people do not find out what evolution is before they make their film. We have seen it here and so often elsewhere. They do not understand and do not want to. Because if they understood the case, and evidence they would have to admit that it makes a sound, evidence based case. What's the Creationist case? Aside from Biblefaith, nothing. Their entire case is based on debunking the science and they can only do that by pointing to unknowns or misunderstanding, misrepresenting or just deprecating the evidence.

There's a pattern and not just in Creationism - false claims, accusation, denying, dismissing and deprecating all rebuttals and pretending they won when they lost.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #133]

I am not saying you should believe in the Exodus since you can’t be 100% certain. I am not appealing to that kind of reasoning. This discussion is about whether science can debunk the Bible. You seem to agree it can’t debunk the Exodus, although it may get there one day (and perhaps soon). Which way one should lean on the Exodus is a different discussion for a different place. And one that I don't think would be fruitful for us since I lean towards it happening because of where I see the arguments for theism over atheism and the historicity of the resurrection leading us here and we've already discussed those arguments together.

If you want to continue our discussion here, then you still need to rationally support your interpretation of Genesis as hyper-literal for what you've claimed science has debunked.

[POI]

If POI is disinclined to go further on the Exodus, I'll be happy to take you on.

I asked him (3) follow-up questions to (3) assertions he made. I even asked him twice. And twice, no answer from him on these (3) follow-up questions; instead citing I'm shifting the burden?.?.?.?. He seems to be big on backing up assertions, accept when it comes to himself. I've made my position quite clear. Which is, aside from the claim from the book, is there anything else? The answer, thus far, is no. We have no evidence, so why still remain undecided or agnostic to the claim? Why not instead just reconcile that this event did not happen? In which case, we may then see the goalposts move. Maybe it was not meant to be a literal event after all? Anything to protect/preserve the Bible!

And here is where the 'crickets' come. If evidence existed, outside the claim from the book, then I would have no more position. Yet, thus far, he refuses to give any evidence. And like you stated, people still debate about all sorts of things, like a flat earth, gravity, other. But just because there will always be a debate about the shape of earth, does not mean we should coherently acknowledge them.

In essence, the Exodus is a large claim consisting of millions of folks over the span of hundreds of years. Aside from the claim, what else does anyone have?

[Data]

Ben Stein is a terrible apologist.

Does he serve in that capacity? I don't know. I don't pay attention to that sort of thing.

We have seen it here and so often elsewhere. They do not understand and do not want to. Because if they understood the case, and evidence they would have to admit that it makes a sound, evidence based case. What's the Creationist case? Aside from Biblefaith, nothing. Their entire case is based on debunking the science and they can only do that by pointing to unknowns or misunderstanding, misrepresenting or just deprecating the evidence.

There's a pattern and not just in Creationism - false claims, accusation, denying, dismissing and deprecating all rebuttals and pretending they won when they lost.

[Laughs] You crack me up.

Really. You don't see the irony? Are you familiar with the term becoming your enemy? I think that if what you say about Creationists is true it's because they've become you.

[Data]

Putting people on ignore is an even worse admission that you lost than being evasive.

In the not at all distant past, I would have agreed with you, but not anymore. Especially given the tactics here. Nothing to do with debate other than from pretense. I am not evasive, though. Back in the day my favorite pastime was to get as wasted as possible and go online to taunt militant atheists. I didn't disguise that. At all. What you see is what you get from me.

But it's great - you are doing a great job as a Good Bad example.

Suits me. There isn't anything I can say or do to impress the conformed fundi militant atheists. And I couldn't care less.

The funny thing is you may tell yourself that you have somehow won

No, you only think I do. As politically incorrect as I am you have to make me into a more insidious monster. You have to have a monster. To keep the home fires burning. Have at it, but I'm not going to allow you to waste my time any more than I allow by becoming as - zealous and righteous as you.

by cutting yourselfofffrom a discussion, but everyone here can see that you decline to respond.

Whoopty dooo. Honestly, if you make a good point and you play nice, I can maintain interest but that isn't your responsibility either, is it.

By the way, this has probably been on your mind a great deal, but don't you think it's time for you to nominate me for the most awesome debater of all time or something? Is there some sort of cash prize? I only mention it because my adoring army of silent supporters are getting - sort of anxious about that.

[POI]

In the not at all distant past, I would have agreed with you, but not anymore. Especially given the tactics here.

You mean these tactics:

Fri Nov 10, 2023 11:27 am "I won't be reading your posts anymore."

And then 6 days later:

Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:28 am "I'm not going to engage with you any more until . . ."

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

Your tactics have been exposed. Reference post 182 (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=182)

[alexxcJRO]

God created what in what order isn't relevant to the question of does micro debunk Bible.

This exchange is really turning into some kind of comedy.
You initial OP question states: "Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?"

So this is relevant:
Fossils of modern whales are not found before the first land animals fossils in the geological strata.
Therefore it(science) debunks the idea Yahweh created "great whales" before land animals.

"18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
(Genesis 1:18-25)

It doesn't matter what you call it. Species, classification, ad infinitum absurdum. If you grow grass, you get grass. A fig tree produces figs. et cetera.

Off course a fish will always birth a fish, a female lion will always birth a lion. This argument is stupid.
The idea is that changes occur thanks to mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection.

On small amounts of time(years, decades, centuries) you get micro-evolution aka micro-changes: Galapagos finches, bacteria developing ‘molecular scissors’ that degrades PET, Nicaraguan fish developed very fat lips, emergence of drug-resistant bacteria and pesticide- resistant insects and so on.

On very large spans of of time(millions, billions of years) you get macro-evolution aka macro-changes. A fish turning into a tetrapod and a land mammal turning into an aquatic mammal, an ape like ancestor turning into a modern human.

Also for example earlier forms of fossils in the genus Homo: Australopithecus Africanus are never found together with later forms in the genus Homo: Homo Erectus.
The earlier forms have got extinct by the time the later forms evolved from the intermediate forms.

This debunks the idea Yahweh created all the "kinds" at the same time.

ETA: Oh, I forgot. I also addressed the question of where to draw the line. Reproduction of fertile offspring. Biblically speaking.

So you agree speciation happens but not the rest because in your mind does not contradict the Bible.
So you agree with science as long as in your belief does not contradict the Bible. As soon as it contradicts the Bible science is wrong.

Forgot again. The platypus. Doesn't matter. I'm not a scientist. I don't know or care what kind.

Please answer:
Q: What kind does the platypus belong to?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #133]

I am not saying you should believe in the Exodus since you can’t be 100% certain. I am not appealing to that kind of reasoning. This discussion is about whether science can debunk the Bible. You seem to agree it can’t debunk the Exodus, although it may get there one day (and perhaps soon). Which way one should lean on the Exodus is a different discussion for a different place. And one that I don't think would be fruitful for us since I lean towards it happening because of where I see the arguments for theism over atheism and the historicity of the resurrection leading us here and we've already discussed those arguments together.

If you want to continue our discussion here, then you still need to rationally support your interpretation of Genesis as hyper-literal for what you've claimed science has debunked.

Fair argument. But there are two counters. One is 'clean hands'.IF (if) science debunks Genesis (and it does - other than to denialists) then there is reason to doubt the Exodus.

Then where the problems and queries with the Exodus mount up (the problem with claiming an enslaved Israel in Egypt and the lack of any evidence for an Exodus, the logistical and chronological problems with the account, and the indications of a Babylonian 6th c origin (writing style, anachronism and Babylon material), the go - to hypothesis is 'No real Exodus' rather than 'true until 100% disproven (1).

You may have seen an apologist appeal to 'piling up of indirect evidence'. In fact a pile of bad evidence does not = a bit of good evidence. But a pile of queries at least shift the sliding scale of credibility from easy acceptance to serious doubt. That's where we are on Exodus. I may say I found that the reference to Sargon in the Bulrushes made me suspect a Babylonian origin, especially as the Philistia anachronism made me think Exodus was written after that time, and now I hear online that the Hebrew shows 600 BC style which puts it in the exilic times.

I think I am the only one to suspect that Ahmose I is recast as Moses and it was just an idea. But now I realise that Josephus at least thought the expulsion of the Hyksos was the Exodus, I am more sure that Exodus used Babylonian records of the Hyksos expulsion and just changed Ahmose to Moses and had him lead the Semites to Canaan rather than pushing them back into Canaan.

I don't mind whether you engage in debate here or not. But Genesis fails in that science has validated the Geology and evolutionary biodiversity (science - denial aside) and likely Cosmology, too. I'd say the debunk is done and dusted and either you haven't followed the debate or you are in denial.

(1) the common and basic error in Theist thinking is 'believe - or not', that is, ignoring a sliding scale of credibility of lack of. In a way that is deceptive of course as they are well aware of 'probability' when it suits them. This false mindset is even aside from reversal of burden of proof: assuming it's all true until 100% disproven, and we saw with the cetan sequence, evidence even that good can be ignored and dismissed in favor of Faith.

[TRANSPONDER]

Finally, - and this is a personal view - anyone who tries to make an argument by throwing a pop song at me, gains nothing but a lower rung of credibility in my view.. For 2 pins I'd throw Delius' Mass of Life' back at you, but I don't want to try everyone's patience.

Well, what do you think it was done for?!

Look. If I were paying these guys to come to a scientific consensus on the OP I would have fired you all. And as for your obfuscation, as Golem puts it, your argument - if I were your science teacher, I would have failed you all. I've answered part of the question. It isn't a Bible or Science debate. I'm bored. So, carry on.

Data, mate, you have Lost. I will tell you why. There are 3 levels of apologetics - evidence/argument; fiddling and sauce.

You tried to argue on the evidence, have failed on that and on evasiveness and fiddling, and now you are being cheeky. This means you lost the debate and you know it. If you had anything better, you would use it. All you have now is cheek and abuse.

Oh and Alexx is quite right - what 'Kind' is a platypus? What Kind is a bat (the Bible writers classified it as a bird), what 'Kind' is a whale? The Bible was ok as a rough guess at classification, but science - species is better. It answers the questions the Bible can't and doesn't even know they are questions.

[Replying to Data in post #158]

Terrible apologetics, terrible. You evade all the questions other than the ones you strawman, like Micro doesn't contradict the Bible. Sure - Creationism has grudgingly accepted that evolution by natural selection happens - within species or 'Kinds' as they like to say. They deny that the divergence can get so great that a different species - name has to be given. This was demonstrated with the cetan sequence and one example of speciation proves all. Now you stick your fingers in your ears, screw your eyes shut and say 'I don't see'. You are in denial and you lose. Your evasiveness and strawmanning the arguments will not help you. You have been rumbled.

Ben Stein is a terrible apologist.

Does he serve in that capacity? I don't know. I don't pay attention to that sort of thing.

We have seen it here and so often elsewhere. They do not understand and do not want to. Because if they understood the case, and evidence they would have to admit that it makes a sound, evidence based case. What's the Creationist case? Aside from Biblefaith, nothing. Their entire case is based on debunking the science and they can only do that by pointing to unknowns or misunderstanding, misrepresenting or just deprecating the evidence.

There's a pattern and not just in Creationism - false claims, accusation, denying, dismissing and deprecating all rebuttals and pretending they won when they lost.

[Laughs] You crack me up.

Really. You don't see the irony? Are you familiar with the term becoming your enemy? I think that if what you say about Creationists is true it's because they've become you.

Denialist laughter is just part of Apologetics of the 3rd kind - sauce. I'm not even going to ask you to explain (never mind justify) your accusation that Creationists have somehow become me because you have lost. Lost the debate, lost credibility and lost face. The more you mock and cheek, the more you lose.

It's fine. Your denial only shows those looking in how bad Bible apologetics has to get to prop up denialist faith.

p.s Of course Ben Stein is being an apologist for 'No intelligence allowed'. Anyone with half a brain cell could see it. But of course you are smart and know better. This is just Sauce, designed to score cheap pointless points - you hope. I have seen it many, many times before when Bible apologists start to lose the debate.
[Replying to Data in post #165]

I'm not even going to quote your post but just link as it is denial, evasion and sauce and nothing of substance. I no longer care other than to point to what is the denialist flailings of a Bible apologist who has no case and is in denial about the evolutionary one. I merely invite any believers with their mind still a bit open to see what Biblebased denial looks like and point out that it is possible to be a Christian and not a Genesis - literalist.

[Data]

This exchange is really turning into some kind of comedy.

I think you're right. I've been way too much of a whiny little (female dog). I think the reason is I've got stuff I'm doing elsewhere, working on behind the scenes mechanics of something I'm going to start working on in January and as much as I like doing this, with all its faults, I feel pressure to stop wasting time. So, I'm going to go back to my usual much more agreeable, patient, open minded and diplomatic self and do just this until January, then just try and keep a balance with my new project by only posting here until noon each day. No more whining or ignoring. Keep in mind, though, I seem to be one against many and I can't devote as much time as I would like to every post. Also, that I am, probably like yourself, straightforward, blunt, and prone to use of words that I believe intellectually and linguistically stilted people who are generally overeducated/ignorant/religious find objectionable. Obscene. To me there aren't any obscene words. I have to honor my agreement and follow the rules, but man it's difficult. I have thick skin and I recommend you (whoever I'm talking to) do as well.

Your initial OP question states: "Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?"

Right.

So this is relevant:
Fossils of modern whales are not found before the first land animals fossils in the geological strata.
Therefore it(science) debunks the idea Yahweh created "great whales" before land animals.

Okay. I think I've actually briefly addressed this. Maybe you don't accept my response? The reason I see this type of debate as pointless and silly is that 1) the opponents typically aren't conversant in the other's source and 2) it is endless disagreement using the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. "This is true because science says" and "This is true because the Bible says." That is why, to me, healthy debate is science vs science or Bible vs Bible. What we are doing is toxic, egocentric, ideological fixation that never creates anything new, never teaches or learns.

I see it as disagreement rather than debunking. By your logic the Bible debunks science and science debunks the Bible. I don't agree. They simply don't agree with one another. Example; I say to you the Bible says some event happens and science says it didn't. No evidence. Then some archaeological evidence is discovered in Iran that proves the Bible right. The Bible hadn't been debunked by science, they simply disagreed. When the new data was discovered, the Bible didn't debunk science, it's just that new information came to light. I left the topic wide open for the sake of discussion. Including debunking, as given definition by the dictionary (common use of words) just making fun of. But then, who is science? Anyone who claims they "follow science"? Follow science. That's absurd. I've debunked science by making that statement? Science doesn't waste it's time debunking the Bible. People who say science debunks the Bible, either by disagreement or mockery, are the real anti-science. Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system. I believe people who use science in that way are ideologues abusing science just as I believe that theist that use the Bible to be moral police of the globe are anti-Christs.

You say fossils of modern whales are not found before the first land animals in the geological strata. Darwin: "In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in the structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produces as monstrous as a whale." Scientists of Darwin's day mocked that and he eventually retracted it. But today, that's pretty much standard indoctrination and propaganda of a science long ago corrupted by financial and social incentive. Just like religion had great success with earlier. They've only changed tools when one wore out, they got a new one.

Let's look at it. Keeping in mind that this isn't me. I have no idea what I'm talking about just like you have no idea about the Bible. I'm researching. Then relaying in my own words. No, I'm not going to give you my sources because then you'll try to dismiss them for not agreeing with you. Again - appeal to authority. Like my old "chum" Transponder (I know you're reading this) says, that's science denial. Yes. It is. I deny your ideological abuse of "science" just like I deny "Christianity" the ideological abuse of the Bible.

On to the whale fossils. And I've briefly addressed some of this in earlier posts in this thread. Indohyus 48 million years aga (MYA), Pakicetus 52 MYA, Ambulocetus 50 MYA, Rodhocetus 47 MYA, Basilosaurus and Dorundon 40 MYA, to the modern whale. Indohyus is dated at 48 MYA. Much earlier than its decendent Pakicetus at 52 MYA. Evolutionists ignore where fossils show up and place them where they work with their theory. Chronological inversions or - get this - ghost (German for spirit) lineages.

The same with bird evolution. Allegedly theropods evolving into birds, Archaeopteryx the evidence. An intermediate fossil. But he appears long before the dinosaurs he allegedly descended from. Tiktaalik Roseae allegedly evidence of fish starting to go from sea to land. Until 2010 when fossil footprints were discovered in Poland long before they allegedly evolved.

Basilosaurus and Dorundon are fully aquatic - not a transition to anything. In paleontology intermediate means "morphologically intermediate." Having features of an alleged ancestor and descendant. There is no real ancestral relationship. Not to mention there isn't anywhere near 1/4 of the time it would have taken for the evolution of land animal to whale.

21 And God created great whales . . . . Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: (Genesis 1:18-25)

I'm pretty sure I addressed this in post #334 Where I wrote this. Come to think of it, I don't recall any real response from my old pal to that. My memory sucks though, so who can say?

First, though, you quote Genesis 1:21. You don't do any examination of the text; you just regurgitate it at me. If you had examined the text you were referencing, like a science minded skeptic should, you would probably have first noted the variation in translation. Here. Sea monster, sea creature, Dragon, marine creature. In the seventh grade, long before I became a believer, I had an ignorant science teacher smugly inform the class that Jonah couldn't have been swallowed by a whale (unless it was a sperm whale) but the text doesn't say whale, a few older translations do.

The Hebrew word is tan·nî·nim. Which our great scientific minds could see if they looked on the Hebrew link of the same page I linked the verse to. Here. Actually, it's on the same page as an anchor link, but I don't want to tax the brilliant deductive reasoning of the skeptical before their having yet conquered the quote function in BB Code. Preoccupied, as their inquisitive minds are with the true meaning of life, the universe and everything.

The word is described there as being "A marine, land monster, sea-serpent, jackal." If I were a Bible skeptic half as clever as I thought I was I could make the argument that the sea monster, land monster, jackal was a description of the evolutionary process. But being as clever as that isn't saying much and I'd be wrong. But at least it would be an interesting and possibly original argument. I can't say that for sure because I don't like to do this and try to avoid it like the plague.

Following the Strong's link we see various translations in various verses. Most of them, at a glance, seem to say serpent. Curiously, to save our intrepid audience - men of science - some time we go to the Greek word for lizard. Here. From which you may recognize bizarre mythological terms like dinosaur and brontosaurus, tyrannosaurus come.

Off course a fish will always birth a fish, a female lion will always birth a lion. This argument is stupid.
The idea is that changes occur thanks to mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection.

[Sigh] You have to show where the Bible indicates that one Biblical kind successfully reproduces fertile offspring. That means the claim you are making has to be substantiated by reconciliation of an established contradictory position that isn't merely theoretical disagreement. I've done most for you. I've informed you what constitutes a biblical kind and its limitations. All you have to do is demonstrate it.

On small amounts of time (years, decades, centuries) you get micro-evolution aka micro-changes: Galapagos finches, bacteria developing ‘molecular scissors’ that degrades PET, Nicaraguan fish developed very fat lips, emergence of drug-resistant bacteria and pesticide- resistant insects and so on.

[Sigh] You have to show where the Bible indicates that one Biblical kind successfully reproduces fertile offspring. That means the claim you are making has to be substantiated by reconciliation of an established contradictory position that isn't merely theoretical disagreement. I've done most for you. I've informed you what constitutes a biblical kind and its limitations. All you have to do is demonstrate it.

On very large spans of of time(hundreds of thousands, millions, billions of years) you get macro-evolution aka macro-changes. A fish turning into a tetrapod and a land mammal turning into an aquatic mammal, an ape like ancestor turning into a modern human.

Allegedly. That is the dispute. Don't conflate the two.

Also for example earlier forms of fossils in the genus Homo: Australopithecus Africanus are never found together with later forms in the genus Homo: Homo Erectus.
The earlier forms have got extinct by the time the later forms evolved from the intermediate forms.

Make this easy for me, huh? Let's just stick to the whales because we don't have the time. You only need one example to accomplish your goal.

This debunks the idea Yahweh created all the "kinds" at the same time.

There is nothing in the Bible that says they were created at the same time.

So you agree speciation happens but not the rest because in your mind does not contradict the Bible.

Here's where you don't understand my position. Speciation is defined as "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." Okay. In biological terms a species is defined as "a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens. 2. a kind or sort."

That's not the same as the Biblical kind if you deviate from the definition given above to "mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics."

So you agree with science as long as in your belief does not contradict the Bible. As soon as it contradicts the Bible science is wrong.

No. I think science is a joke. The Bible isn't. Science doesn't have to contradict the Bible for my estimation. The same applies to religion. It's a joke, but it doesn't have to contradict science for me to think it's a joke.

Please answer:
Q: What kind does the platypus belong to?

I've answered this already. I don't know. I don't care. That isn't my job. That's your job.