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]

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.

Have you responded to post #92? Where I show you are wrong.

Here is the evidence on the Bible writer's perspective on the subject of bats and birds. The word used at Leviticus 11:13 is ohph, which is sometimes translated incorrectly as birds, and sometimes as fowl. It is important to note that the English word fowl applied not only to birds, but all winged flying creatures such as insects and bats. So, although the word fowl in translation is accurate it is often misunderstood due to the fact that today the English word fowl is somewhat more limited than it used to be, applying to birds only.

The Hebrew word for bat is ataleph.
The Hebrew word for flying creature or fowl (as in all flying creatures including birds, bats, and insects) is ohph.
The Hebrew word for birds in general is tsippohr.
The Hebrew word for birds of prey specifically is ayit.

The Hebrew word sherets is drawn from a root word that means to "swarm" "or teem." In noun form applies to small creatures to be found in large numbers. (Exodus 8:3; Psalm 105:30) In scripture it first applies to the initial appearance on the fifth creative day when the waters began to swarm with living souls. Genesis 1:20

Fowl do not swarm in the waters.

The law regarding clean and unclean things demonstrates that the term applies to aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10) winged creatures, including bats and insects (Leviticus 11:19-31; Deuteronomy 14:19) land creatures such as rodents, lizards, chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31) creatures traveling on their "belly" and multi-legged creatures (Leviticus 11:41-44).

The English word fowl is primarily used today to refer to a large or edible bird. The Hebrew term ohph, which is derived from the verb fly, applied to all winged or flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-22) So the Hebrew (ohph) is not so limited in usage as the English word fowl much like the old English cattle.

It isn't about taxonomy it is about language and translation.

[TRANSPONDER]

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 "plants 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.

That's a lot better, though I can't see where your point that species does not fit Biblical 'Kinds' makes your case that Biblical kinds does not contradict species. Which is it? And you didn't' already answer'the point about the Platypus, you evaded and deflected it You don't know what 'Kind' it is. Nor do we. Because Biblical 'Kinds' are inadequate to describe the actuality. Science knows - Bats are flying rodents, Whales are mammals adapted to the sea, Platypus is a marsupial, adapted to water life, thus the webbed feet and tail like an otter and a bill like a duck. No problem, except for Biblical kinds. They do not work well.

Nor is interbreeding anything to do with evolution. Creationists consistently fail to understand this.

But you have made a good point with the cetan dating. I would like to ask, however, did you work that out yourself or get it from a Creationist source? The point is valid either way but I'm curious.

[TRANSPONDER]

I checked and Indohyas is dated 50 - 48 Mya
Pacicetus c 50 Mya Ambulocetus 50 mya the rest in decreasing date order (BC has 40 my come later than 50 Mys of course).

This means that Indohyas, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus fit in an evolutionary scale 48 -50 million years . Note that not all Indohyas would have had to take the water adaptation route, if they could manage where they were. It is why there are still monkeys just as Americans came from Europeans but there are still Europeans. Your objection really does not hold water and I'd still like to know whether that was your own effort or you lifted it from a creationist apologetics site.

I think your argument from Darwin's brown bear fails. Even if he made a bad hypothesis about that, how does it have anything to do with hypotheses that are validated?

In fact there is nothing wrong with the idea of a brown bear adapting to becoming a sub - species with a very large mouth if the available food required that. Even if mockery at the time made him back down, in evolutionary terms, the analogy is perfectly sound.

I'm glad that you are making a serious effort, but it isn't good enough.

[Data]

That's a lot better, though I can't see where your point that species does not fit Biblical 'Kinds' makes your case that Biblical kinds does not contradict species. Which is it?

If you include species to mean "mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics" it throws it off. The Biblical kind doesn't allow for such a interpretation. Many species can fit into a Biblical kind.

And you didn't' already answer'the point about the Platypus, you evaded and deflected it You don't know what 'Kind' it is. Nor do we.

That was my answer. I don't know. And, earlier, I said the Biblical kinds can be defined as capable of producing fertile offspring. I gotta' tell ya old boy, them thar platypuses aint nothin' like I ever did see! I can't imagine anything else matin' with one of those things. However. Where did they come from?

Because Biblical 'Kinds' are inadequate to describe the actuality. Science knows - Bats are flying rodents, Whales are mammals adapted to the sea, Platypus is a marsupial, adapted to water life, thus the webbed feet and tail like an otter and a bill like a duck. No problem, except for Biblical kinds. They do not work well.

That's only because you're trying to lump them in with anything else they looked or behaved like.

Nor is interbreeding anything to do with evolution. Creationists consistently fail to understand this.

Explain. I don't even know what you are talking about so I can't misunderstand it other than that. Remember, I don't take creationists as such seriously. Either from a theological or scientific perspective. Not that I can properly evaluate the latter because I've no interest in creationists.

But you have made a good point with the cetan dating.

Did I. Well. Good then. But I just get this stuff from someone else and put it into my own words if I understand it well enough to do that. That's what we all do, though, really, isn't it? We learn from others.

I would like to ask, however, did you work that out yourself or get it from a Creationist source? The point is valid either way but I'm curious.

I got it from a You Tube Video. Pulled it out of the hat, so to speak. I can give you that source if you acknowledge that it isn't an argument about sources. I don't care where we get our sources. I address what is presented rather than who presents it. I know how this sort of thing usually works. If they have no argument, they attack the source. I don't care if my source is bat excrement crazy. It's about the argument.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq_oYftA2ow&list=WL

[TRANSPONDER]

That's a lot better, though I can't see where your point that species does not fit Biblical 'Kinds' makes your case that Biblical kinds does not contradict species. Which is it?

If you include species to mean "mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics" it throws it off. The Biblical kind doesn't allow for such a interpretation. Many species can fit into a Biblical kind.

And you didn't' already answer'the point about the Platypus, you evaded and deflected it You don't know what 'Kind' it is. Nor do we.

That was my answer. I don't know. And, earlier, I said the Biblical kinds can be defined as capable of producing fertile offspring. I gotta' tell ya old boy, them thar platypuses aint nothin' like I ever did see! I can't imagine anything else matin' with one of those things. However. Where did they come from?

Because Biblical 'Kinds' are inadequate to describe the actuality. Science knows - Bats are flying rodents, Whales are mammals adapted to the sea, Platypus is a marsupial, adapted to water life, thus the webbed feet and tail like an otter and a bill like a duck. No problem, except for Biblical kinds. They do not work well.

That's only because you're trying to lump them in with anything else they looked or behaved like.

Nor is interbreeding anything to do with evolution. Creationists consistently fail to understand this.

Explain. I don't even know what you are talking about so I can't misunderstand it other than that. Remember, I don't take creationists as such seriously. Either from a theological or scientific perspective. Not that I can properly evaluate the latter because I've no interest in creationists.

But you have made a good point with the cetan dating.

Did I. Well. Good then. But I just get this stuff from someone else and put it into my own words if I understand it well enough to do that. That's what we all do, though, really, isn't it? We learn from others.

I would like to ask, however, did you work that out yourself or get it from a Creationist source? The point is valid either way but I'm curious.

I got it from a You Tube Video. Pulled it out of the hat, so to speak. I can give you that source if you acknowledge that it isn't an argument about sources. I don't care where we get our sources. I address what is presented rather than who presents it. I know how this sort of thing usually works. If they have no argument, they attack the source. I don't care if my source is bat excrement crazy. It's about the argument.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq_oYftA2ow&list=WL

As I said,'kinds' broadly classifies critters according to how they look. it's good enough rule of thumb, but fails with whales as they surely would be considered fish, but they are not. Bats were considered birds, but they are no. And you say 'Don't know' as regards the Platypus.Science says 'Marsupial - adapted to water,like the otter, seal and penguin. Science can do it better. Your remark of my 'trying to lump them in' is the exacts opposite of what science does - on study it lumps them out. Bats are not birds, Whales are not fish.

You mentioned interbreeding in passing. But just to clarify, I said that was nothing to do with evolution -theory. Creationists have argued that evolution can't work because species can't interbreed Their offspring (as a rule) are infertile. But evolution doesn't work that way - a branch of a species changes until it becomes a different critter. The Cetan sequence is observable evidence of this.

Ok. Thanks for telling me. It's ok. We all get stuff from elsewhere unless we are experts in a subject. But on other subjects experts would have to go to the other experts.

But, like I said, the Cetan sequence is ok chronologically. From around 50 - down to 48 million years ago and in chronological sequence matching the evolutionary changes. That the earliest known forms were still around when a branch (Pakicetus) had adapted to water a bit more (though still looking very like the original) is no problem for this.

[alexxcJRO]

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.

Poor soul. Watches "Discovery Science" Youtube channel.
The guy was long time debunked because of quote mining cus' dishonesty is a thing and misleading misunderstandings because stupidity is a thing:

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.

It's irrelevant dear sir for it says: "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.'
Therefore "every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly" includes whales too. Even if the text meant says a sea monster/sea creature/ marine creature which could be argue great whales are.
My point still stands.

[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.

This makes no sense.

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

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).

We have clear evidence of different animals forms from simpler to more complex existing at huge times spans difference.
We have evidence of cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old.
We have evidence of prehistoric fishes: Haikouichthys, from about 518 million years ago in China.
We have evidence of the earliest dinosaur: from Tanzania, dated 243 million years old.
We have evidence of Homo Erectus in eastern Africa and are about 1.5 to 1.9 million years old.

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.

Please don't whine and obfuscate. It's getting really boring and annoying for me already.
You have come on a debate site. Please engage in debate or else go to the preachy side of the forum or find a place where those pleasant eco chambers exist.

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

When I say same time I didn't mean instantly. I mean very short time spans.
Surely not in billions of years.
Has Yahweh poofed into existence cyanobacteria in what is today western Australia 3.5 billion years ago?
Then he said. Oof I am tired from all that magical incantations. Let's take a break.
Then Yahweh poofed into existence first multicelullar organisms 2 billion years ago.
Then he said. Oof I am tired from all that magical incantations. Let's take a break.
Then Yahweh poofed into existence multiple Cambrian organisms 530 billion years ago.
Then he said. Oof I am tired from all that magical incantations. Let's take a break.
Then Yahweh poofed into existence first plants 400 million of years ago.
Then he said. Oof I am tired from all that magical incantations. Let's take a break.
...
Then Yahweh poofed into existence first dinosaur 400 million of years ago in what is now Tanzania.
Then he said. Oof I am tired from all that magical incantations. Let's take a break.
...
Then Yahweh poofed into existence first Homo Erectus guys in what is now eastern Africa 1.5 to 1.9 million years ago.
Then he said. Oof I am tired from all that magical incantations. Let's take a break.
Then Yahweh poofed into existence first Homo Sapiens Sapiens guys in what is now eastern East and South Africa 350,000 and 260,000 years ago.

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."

"speciation, the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution. Speciation involves the splitting of a single evolutionary lineage into two or more genetically independent lineages."
https://www.britannica.com/science/speciation
Homo Sapiens Sapiens interbred with Homo erectus, Homo Sapiens Neanderthals, Homo habilis . They belonged to different species.
Give me few examples of few kinds.

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.

Says science is a joke while typing on keayboard using a PC which has a CPU and many components while on the Internet in a heated home staying on a designed chair while wathing a monitor/TV. Using so many scientific wonders of our times.
This is rich. So embarrassing.

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

Platypus
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Monotremata
Family: Ornithorhynchidae
Genus: Ornithorhynchus
Species: O. anatinus

Common man. Now your turn. Don't obfuscate.

Answer the question:
Q: What kind does the platypus belong to?

[The Tanager]

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.

I agree with that, but I don’t think science debunks Genesis.

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)

I agree that at a certain point this takes place. I think we aren’t there yet in archaeology as evidenced by the ongoing debate (by more than just Christian pseudo-archaeologists wanting to hold onto their beliefs). In that uncertainty (even one that is truly leaning against the Exodus happening), I think one’s philosophical understanding and general worldview is what (rightly) moves people one way or the other.

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.

I’m not questioning your science on these fronts. I’m not denying these things. I just don’t agree that we should read these questions into the Genesis text. I don’t think the author is addressing the age of the earth, how many days it took for everything to be created, the order of things appearing in reality, whether evolution happened or not, etc. You keep glossing over that interpretative issue. That is the point of debate for us. What is your rational support for your interpretation of Genesis as addressing those questions with its statements?

[POI]

I agree with that, but I don’t think science debunks Genesis.

If I'm not mistaken, <you> think the authors of Genesis did not intend for such stories to be literal, in a plain reading. In this case, of course science cannot touch them.

I guess we need to first figure out, once and for all, what the intent of Genesis IS? Meaning, literal as read, or not? Until Christians plant this flag, of course there will be many like you stating science does not debunk it.

But here's the dealio... I've debated hermeneutic scholars. Some think Genesis is literal, and then deny science. And then there's hermeneutic scholars who think more-so like you.

Can you Christians agree on anything important? Apparently not. I blame the authors, not you

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I agree with that, but I don’t think science debunks Genesis.

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)

I agree that at a certain point this takes place. I think we aren’t there yet in archaeology as evidenced by the ongoing debate (by more than just Christian pseudo-archaeologists wanting to hold onto their beliefs). In that uncertainty (even one that is truly leaning against the Exodus happening), I think one’s philosophical understanding and general worldview is what (rightly) moves people one way or the other.

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.

I’m not questioning your science on these fronts. I’m not denying these things. I just don’t agree that we should read these questions into the Genesis text. I don’t think the author is addressing the age of the earth, how many days it took for everything to be created, the order of things appearing in reality, whether evolution happened or not, etc. You keep glossing over that interpretative issue. That is the point of debate for us. What is your rational support for your interpretation of Genesis as addressing those questions with its statements?

I have dealt with the interpretative issue elsewhere 'metaphorically true means not true at all'. If you are saying it wasn't actually 6 days, dark and light, morning and evening, which is what it actually says, then you may as well scrap Genesis and go with evolution, which is not only fact - based but true in one observable example of speciation: whales and the like. And Genesis gone, what's the reason to believe in Original sin? That Eden scenario never made sense anyway.

And if Eden didn't happen what's this original sin that needs to be atoned for? Evolution just says 'It's a survival trait, good or bad'. Secular morals may or may not be able to correct this, but we are not sinners because of it. It is how we were made, and evolution shoulders the blame, unlike God and we have to sort it, not offload it onto Jesus leaving us apparently just as sinful after his death as before.

No, Once Genesis is rendered a fairy tale, the rest unravels. And we do not owe a god anything, nor any of religion's churches or priests or preachers, all with their eager hands out.

Is religion declining? If we stopped giving it our money, it'd decline a sight faster.

[The Tanager]

If I'm not mistaken, <you> think the authors of Genesis did not intend for such stories to be literal, in a plain reading. In this case, of course science cannot touch them.

I guess we need to first figure out, once and for all, what the intent of Genesis IS? Meaning, literal as read, or not? Until Christians plant this flag, of course there will be many like you stating science does not debunk it.

But here's the dealio... I've debated hermeneutic scholars. Some think Genesis is literal, and then deny science. And then there's hermeneutic scholars who think more-so like you.

Can you Christians agree on anything important? Apparently not. I blame the authors, not you

Can any worldview, much less one that has so many people wanting to claim the same term, 100% agree on much, if anything? This has no rational force against the truth of a worldview.

I think the second part is the crux here, though. The question is whether you are rational to blame the authors instead of me. So, lay out your case why this is the author’s fault and not those trying to interpret what the author meant.