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?

[alexxcJRO]

Irrelevant ramblings in a pathetic attempt to avoid the evidence.
Please dear sir.
Address the evidence from post #64 of this thread.
Here is a debate site not an obfuscate site.

I'm not avoiding the evidence; I'm agreeing with a good portion of it while saying that it is irrelevant in the purpose of this discussion. I'm not going to get sucked into an endless toxic debate with ideologues - believers or unbelievers, especially one that has more to do with science than the Bible, which I have virtually no interest in. I did that for two decades. That's enough for me.

Evolution means change. It doesn't create a conflict with my Biblical understanding until you say something changes into something else. The biological term and the Biblical term kind differ. Many biological kinds can be a part of the Biblical kind. So, there we have some idiomatic confusion.

A drawing, a video, fossils, and bones aren't evidence for evolution if they only show speculation of how bones change, in the case presented against the Bible because the Bible doesn't have a problem with that. If those drawings and videos show something changing into something else then it presents a conflict, but those are conjectural, speculative. Fossils and bones don't do that. Only drawings and videos and theoretical science. It isn't my place to debate those. Carry on with the speculation. That is science. That is knowledge. I do the same with my Biblical studies. I say "is this true, or is this true. I think this is true and the other isn't." Then I have to hold that up to the Bible and see if, that is if I can come to some sound but fallible conclusion. That's how I learn. The toxicity from these sorts of debates, in my opinion, comes from the unreasonable refusal to do that. But I'm not a scientist and neither are you. So, all we can do is get sucked into that toxic exchange. Because people think that if there is disagreement it has to be squashed. That isn't a scientific behavior.

So, in my experience, the evolutionist takes the idea of change, evolution, which isn't contradictory to the Bible, and with it move seamlessly into the Biblically contradictory evolution (something changing into something else) as if they were the same. They can demonstrate a fossil, bones being similar in the sense that Biblical kinds would be, but if they go beyond that they have to use speculation.

Here's some fish bones.
Okay.
Here's some other fish bones.
Okay.
See the evolution?
Yes.
See how the fish changed into something else?
No.
Well, they're similar.
So?
Well, that bone became something else because of the environment.
Yes.
Then what's the problem?
It's still a fish.
Oh, well, see this (fill in the blank) land animal has this bone here.
Okay.
See how that came from the fish?
No.
Well, let me explain it . . . (fill in the blank) does that make sense? See it?
No.
Science says that's the way it happened.
Great. So?
The Bible says it didn't happen that way.
Great. So?
So, science debunks the Bible.
No, it disagrees with it. Boy that was a waste of time.
Science is better than the Bible.
That's subjective, but no it isn't.
You creationist! You think the Bible is better than science!
It's subjective, but no it isn't. What, do you want to waste our time and fight it out? To what end? Wars, killing, destruction? It would be much quicker and easier, not to mention safer, if I just adopted your "science" teaching into my religion like was done with the immortal soul of Socrates and the Trinity from Plato or is that what you were doing with Empedocles and Anaximander? You're so smart!
[Walks away shaking his head]

Irrelevant ramblings in a pathetic attempt to avoid the evidence.
There is plenty of evidence in post beside the morphological and fossil evidence. Don't need to play it like there is not other stuff there beside the morphological and fossil evidence.
Please dear sir.
Address the evidence from post #64 of this thread.
Here is a debate site not an obfuscate site.

Tiktaalik aside, the cetan sequence is the 'undeniable' evidence of speciation. Let's take our pal's format
Here's some cetan sequence fossil bones. Land animal form
Okay.
Here's some other cetan sequence fossil bones, adapting to water.
Okay.
See the evolution?
Yes.
See how the land animal changed into a sea animal?
No.
Well, they show a change of features, body, limbs, even breathing arrangement.
So?
Well, that land animal became a sea animal because of the environment.
Yes.
Then what's the problem?
It's still a whale. - kind.

A child could look at the land animal and even Doradon or Baslileosauris and say 'They are different kinds'.

A six year old could see they are different critters, why can't a Creationist? We know why.

There is a clear evolution of morphology(back legs getting shorter till they disappear, legs turning into fins, tail turning into an fish like tail) and a clear distinction between intermediate forms and modern whales:




Doradon or Baslileosauris and a Modern Whale look clearly as distinct kinds of animals.
Modern whales have feeding filters in their mouths as opposed to Doradon which has teeth like a crocodile.

Also the modern whale has vestigial small reminiscent bones: pelvic and femur inside the body. Clear sign and evidence for evolution.

[Data]

There is plenty of evidence in post beside the morphological and fossil evidence. Don't need to play it like there is not other stuff there beside the morphological and fossil evidence.

Don't care about it. This isn't a thread debating evolution, it's a thread about does science debunk the Bible. Show me that evidence.

[Data]

There is a clear evolution of morphology (back legs getting shorter till they disappear, legs turning into fins, tail turning into an fish like tail) and a clear distinction between intermediate forms and modern whales:

Doradon or Baslileosauris and a Modern Whale look clearly as distinct kinds of animals.
Modern whales have feeding filters in their mouths as opposed to Doradon which has teeth like a crocodile.

Also the modern whale has vestigial small reminiscent bones: pelvic and femur inside the body. Clear sign and evidence for evolution.

Show me where the Bible disagrees with this.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. Back in the 80's horse (Eohippus to modern horse) was considered decent evidence of evolution. But then Creationism countered with 'It's still a horse'. We really needed more of a change than the Pepper moth putting on camouflage. About that time Jack Chick did a cartoon strip adapting the Christian student defeats the atheist professor, but not using Good and evil but evolution debunk, the Professor pointed to the hind bones as obviously devolved hind legs The Christian student used the creationist argument that they were purpose designed by God for mating and never were legs at all. "He's destroying me" muttered the atheist professor.

I sorta wondered why apparently atrophied bones were needed when some better feature could be designed, but it was an argument and I looked at whale skeletons to see whether there was any clear limb-feature, and of course I saw the front legs and there was no doubt there. Why did Creationism ignore them?

Well the cetan sequence started appearing. Ambulocetus, Pakicetus and the links to show they were the same species that went through change to a different species. Now it's what was needed - clear speciation and no real case for 'they are different'. There is hard evidence they were all one line. But as I said - modern whales alone was pretty clear proof but the sequence gives us 'before our eyes' evidence. Better than if we went back in time to see these things.

I do not thing that evolution should be asked for any clearer proof than that. I await Creationist or evolution -skeptic argument (not just denial) for why it isn't reckoned good enough to prove evolutionary speciation.

And one example really does validate all. The smart money goes on Tiktaalik shows that Fish turned into reptiles, because we know speciation happens. We can suppose that dinosaurs turned into birds, with the indirect evidence of feathers on dinosaurs, and Bird wings showing evolution from an arm bone. That the cetans show this happens makes that the better conclusion. Birds evolved.

Which is why I rolled up shouting that the evolution debate was won. The only problem is with those who are into election - denial.

[Data]

Thank you.

Thank who?

Back in the 80's horse (Eohippus to modern horse) was considered decent evidence of evolution. But then Creationism countered with 'It's still a horse'. We really needed more of a change than the Pepper moth putting on camouflage. About that time Jack Chick did a cartoon strip adapting the Christian student defeats the atheist professor, but not using Good and evil but evolution debunk, the Professor pointed to the hind bones as obviously devolved hind legs The Christian student used the creationist argument that they were purpose designed by God for mating and never were legs at all. "He's destroying me" muttered the atheist professor.

I sorta wondered why apparently atrophied bones were needed when some better feature could be designed, but it was an argument and I looked at whale skeletons to see whether there was any clear limb-feature, and of course I saw the front legs and there was no doubt there. Why did Creationism ignore them?

Well the cetan sequence started appearing. Ambulocetus, Pakicetus and the links to show they were the same species that went through change to a different species. Now it's what was needed - clear speciation and no real case for 'they are different'. There is hard evidence they were all one line. But as I said - modern whales alone was pretty clear proof but the sequence gives us 'before our eyes' evidence. Better than if we went back in time to see these things.

I do not thing that evolution should be asked for any clearer proof than that. I await Creationist or evolution -skeptic argument (not just denial) for why it isn't reckoned good enough to prove evolutionary speciation.

And one example really does validate all. The smart money goes on Tiktaalik shows that Fish turned into reptiles, because we know speciation happens. We can suppose that dinosaurs turned into birds, with the indirect evidence of feathers on dinosaurs, and Bird wings showing evolution from an arm bone. That the cetans show this happens makes that the better conclusion. Birds evolved.

Which is why I rolled up shouting that the evolution debate was won. The only problem is with those who are into election - denial.

Show me where the Bible says things don't evolve.

[TRANSPONDER]

I was of course thanking Alexwithoput want to quote the whole post, but your response popped up

There is a clear evolution of morphology (back legs getting shorter till they disappear, legs turning into fins, tail turning into an fish like tail) and a clear distinction between intermediate forms and modern whales:

Doradon or Baslileosauris and a Modern Whale look clearly as distinct kinds of animals.
Modern whales have feeding filters in their mouths as opposed to Doradon which has teeth like a crocodile.

Also the modern whale has vestigial small reminiscent bones: pelvic and femur inside the body. Clear sign and evidence for evolution.

Show me where the Bible disagrees with this.

Genesis 1.20 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.

Evolution says no.The great whales were not 'Created' after its'kind, as the evidence is that the original Kind we know of was a land animal and it gradually evolved into the great whales.

If the science is right, it debunks the Bible. There at any rate.

cue 'metaphorically true'. Which would be an improvement on science -denial.

[POI]

I believe it because of the scholarly debate around the Exodus resulting in uncertainty

Outside the Bible's mere say-so alone, exactly what evidence(s) exist to support "the Exodus".

But not all scholars think there is silence. Those that don’t think there is silence believe those that do are usually looking in the wrong time period.

What is the correct time period? And what evidence(s) support 'the Exodus' outside the Bible's mere say-so alone?

That video was not a strong support for your side. The comments that followed in that thread were much stronger, if true. Those comments, though, were more conclusions than support for believing those conclusions.

Exactly what comments were much stronger, and how so?

That’s the point. We know those things because of certain reasons that don’t need to be shared because we are aware of them and very close to the time when they are written. But the reasons are there. They are not here for your interpretation of the Bible; you haven’t shared them.

It is common knowledge he was intending to be a fictional writer. Just like it is common knowledge the Bible writers were not intending to be fictional writers.

Yes, you do need to share the reasons for your belief when disagreeing on an issue with someone. Otherwise you are irrationally begging the question.

I am not begging the question, unless you wish to argue the Bible writer's intent was to write a collection of fiction.

And libraries are more complex than just fiction and non-fiction sections. Some put the Bible in the reference section, the Dewey Decimal system has a section for religious texts, in the 200s.

Yes, I'm well aware. But if you simplify, would the Bible be considered a work of fiction or non-fiction? And if the library only had two sections (fiction/non-fiction), which one would the Bible reside?

Literal history and fiction aren't the only two genres. The Bible has various genres within it. If you believe otherwise, then give actual support.

If we were to ask believers if the Bible is fiction or non-fiction, which unanimous answer do we think we would get?

[Data]

Genesis 1.20 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.

Evolution says no.The great whales were not 'Created' after its'kind, as the evidence is that the original Kind we know of was a land animal and it gradually evolved into the great whales.

If the science is right, it debunks the Bible. There at any rate.

cue 'metaphorically true'. Which would be an improvement on science -denial.

No, not metaphorically; and it doesn't debunk, it disagrees with it. But, let's say for the sake of argument, it does intend to or appear to some to debunk it, the argument, as I see it is this:

[I hate myself for this. Silly and pointless, to put it politiely]

1. First of all, let me tell you why I don't take science seriously. I was in my twenties before science accepted and acknowledged human babies felt pain. Clinicians actually performed surgery on newborns without giving them anaesthetics or pain medications. It was only a little over a hundred years ago that they would wash their hands or clean surgical tools and settings. Had they followed the Bible they would have done thousands of years earlier.

2. I don't take science minded fundamentalist Bible skeptics seriously because they think the Bible writers created some explanation of creation out of superstitious ignorance. A need to explain their world. As if people had to understand the scientific principle involved in boiling water before they had been doing it for centuries. As if to understand the science was the important thing there. Their interpretation of Genesis 1:1 isn't - for all practical purposes: "In the beginning God created the parts of the universe we don't understand."

Okay. Let's dance!

I'm going to make you address each of the points again, if you've regurgitated science dogma at me like a Christian regurgitating Christian doctrine they don't understand, that's too bad. Do it again. If you can't explain the God and the Bible in your own words you don't know or understand your God. If you can't explain this in your own words you don't understand your science and evolution.

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.

Correct the following where I'm wrong. In your own words.

The science of Darwinian evolution argument, as I understand it, is this: A 100-pound wolf like creature turned into a 360 thousand pound whale; the small tail turned into a giant fluke, the four limbs turned into flippers, they evolved a different respiratory system, blowhole, their teeth into baleen, then intra-abdominal testes, ball vertebra, insulation blubber, ability to drink sea water, give birth in breech position, nurse underwater, a reduction in hindlimbs, loss of the pelvis, reorganization of reproductive organs, hydrodynamic skin, lung surfactants, underwater vision, reorganized skull bones and muscle. modified ear bones, decoupled esophagus and trachea.

The Mesonychidae are the link between modern whales and certain hoofed mammals. Sheep, camels, pigs, cows, and dear. 6 feet long, they lived "about" 60 million years ago. Wait a minute. Stop the presses. That changed since my school days.

Maybe the Pakicetus? It - well, partial fragments of the wolf-like skull - was discovered in the 1980s. Since they didn't have the rest of the body, they imagined it was an intermediate between a land animal and a whale. Later (2001) more bones were discovered and it is now thought just have been a land animal. Of course, we have to indoctrinate the children so textbook drawings of the creature swimming in the ocean still appear, presented as an ancestor of the whale.

Also in the little one's "science" textbook is the Ambulocetus, or walking whale. They, it says, could both swim in shallow water and walk on land. Such imaginative and fascinating stuff, this evolution! Museum drawings include a blowhole, though the part of the skull that would have a blowhole was never found. Of the two fossils that were found.

The Rodhocetus appears in museums with a tail fluke. The fossil bones for that tail were never found and they have it as having flippers until fossils were found that have it with front legs.

The leftover legs of the Basilosaurus (there's that Greek word) turn out to be claspers for mating.

[alexxcJRO]

There is plenty of evidence in post beside the morphological and fossil evidence. Don't need to play it like there is not other stuff there beside the morphological and fossil evidence.

Don't care about it. This isn't a thread debating evolution, it's a thread about does science debunk the Bible. Show me that evidence.

We are moving in circles like a headless chicken:

Data: "Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?"

alexxcJRO:
"Bible: God created two earth golems and with a magical incantation he imbued them with life.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: Homo Sapiens Sapiens appeared few hundreds of thousands of years ago through a natural process called Evolution.

Bible: God killed all humans except Noah and his families in a global flood.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: It did not happened. Multiple entire scientific fields show otherwise.

Bible: God made everyone speak different languages in the story of the Tower of Babel.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: The linguistic evidence proves otherwise."


Data: "Do you realize that, speaking on behalf of science, you give no evidence, only opinion? "

alexxcJRO:"You are correct positive claims require positive evidence.
I have made some positive claims and need to provide the evidence.
Here is the evidence for one of the positive claim:
... then I proceed and gave evidence for first claim: Evolution in post #64 of this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=1136111#p1136111 "

Obfuscation Event1:

Data: "Drawings!" and obfuscation: "I'm not going to address all of the post"
alexxcJRO: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... al_fossils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil"

Obfuscation Event2:

Data: "Drawings!" and obfuscation: "Drawings of dragons and ape-men skulls and Jesus - no. I'm not going to debate that in the astonishingly,"

alexxcJRO: "Please dear sir.
Address the evidence from post #64 of this thread.
Here is a debate site not an obfuscate site. "

Obfuscation Event3:

Data: "I'm not going to get sucked into an endless toxic debate with ideologues - believers or unbelievers, especially one that has more to do with science than the Bible, which I have virtually no interest in. I did that for two decades. That's enough for me. A drawing, a video, fossils, and bones aren't evidence for evolution if they only show speculation of how bones change, in the case presented against the Bible because the Bible doesn't have a problem with that. If those drawings and videos show something changing into something else then it presents a conflict, but those are conjectural, speculative. Fossils and bones don't do that. Only drawings and videos and theoretical science. It isn't my place to debate those."

alexxcJRO: "There is plenty of evidence in post beside the morphological and fossil evidence. Don't need to play it like there is not other stuff there beside the morphological and fossil evidence.
Please dear sir.
Address the evidence from post #64 of this thread.
Here is a debate site not an obfuscate site."

Obfuscation Event4:

Data:"Don't care about it. This isn't a thread debating evolution, it's a thread about does science debunk the Bible. Show me that evidence. "

Readers will see the dishonesty, the desperation to avoiding addressing the evidence and the irrelevant, nonsensical ramblings that only pollute the actual exchange and have no value.

[Data]

We are moving in circles like a headless chicken:

Data: "Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?"

alexxcJRO:
"Bible: God created two earth golems and with a magical incantation he imbued them with life.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: Homo Sapiens Sapiens appeared few hundreds of thousands of years ago through a natural process called Evolution.

Bible: God killed all humans except Noah and his families in a global flood.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: It did not happened. Multiple entire scientific fields show otherwise.

Bible: God made everyone speak different languages in the story of the Tower of Babel.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: The linguistic evidence proves otherwise."


Data: "Do you realize that, speaking on behalf of science, you give no evidence, only opinion? "

alexxcJRO:"You are correct positive claims require positive evidence.
I have made some positive claims and need to provide the evidence.
Here is the evidence for one of the positive claim:
... then I proceed and gave evidence for first claim: Evolution in post #64 of this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=1136111#p1136111 "

Stop wasting my time. In order for this discussion to continue you have to accept the fact that your saying something doesn't make it true and doesn't make it science. If you think that repeating it changes that you're wrong.