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?

[The Tanager]

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

I haven’t claimed science proves the Exodus. You have claimed science debunks the evidence. So your rational burden is to show the evidence for that conclusion, not keep shifting the burden and claiming your case is true unless proven otherwise.

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.

No, that isn’t common knowledge for the various Biblical authors. You saying it is common knowledge doesn’t mean it is common knowledge. Give support.

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?

It would depend on the person and the library based on (hopefully rational) reasons as to why they think so.

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

You seem to be using those terms as synonyms to false and true. Is that correct? If so, then, by definition, a believer would think it is non-fiction. But that isn’t what we are talking about. Many believers, like myself, believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth. But myth isn’t equivalent to false. It also isn’t non-fiction. If we asked believers what genre the first 11 chapters of Genesis were (which is our discussion here) we’d get various answers to that question with no unanimity.

[Data]

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

We're done. Thanks.

[POI]

not keep shifting the burden and claiming your case is true unless proven otherwise.

We keep going in circles here. My position is that such a large, claimed event would leave behind some stuff. Where is this stuff? The claim is that millions inhabited a region for hundreds of years. Hence, my position is that the "silence is deafening". I'm merely asking follow-up questions to your responses. (i.e. post 107):

The Tanager

A) "I believe it because of the scholarly debate around the Exodus resulting in uncertainty"
B) "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."
C) "That video was not a strong support for your side. The comments that followed in that thread were much stronger, if true."

POI

A) Outside the Bible's say-so alone, what evidence(s) support 'the Exodus'?
B) What is the correct time period? And what evidence(s) support 'the Exodus' outside the Bible's mere say-so alone?
C) Exactly what comments were much stronger, and how so?

No, that isn’t common knowledge for the various Biblical authors. You saying it is common knowledge doesn’t mean it is common knowledge. Give support.

For starters, we agree 'the Exodus' was not meant to be fictional. And yet, aside from the claim in the book, where's the evidence for its occurrence?

You seem to be using those terms as synonyms to false and true. Is that correct?

No.

[The Tanager]

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

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

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

[POI]

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

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

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

Your answer and offer are not accepted, as is. Why? I find your response both patronizing and unsupported. The silence remains deafening.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #125]

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

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #125]
Looks like we've both nothing more to say, then.

When it comes to 'the Exodus', Christians have little/nothing informative to say. I guess the most sensible answer is to remain 'agnostic' to the claim, because it's a claim which resides within their beloved book; for which the believer needs to rationalize/justify somehow in order to remain in the belief/faith. Have a wonderful day!

[TRANSPONDER]

Evolution of humans from previous humanoids forms.

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

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

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

[POI]

Evolution of humans from previous humanoids forms.

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

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

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

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

[TRANSPONDER]

2. We have plenty evidence of speciation. Observational evidence:
-"Galapagos finches. Charles Darwin, who first studied the finch populations on the Galapagos Islands, believed that speciation required hundreds or even thousands of generations. Yet a remarkable instance of speciation has just been observed among these finches. In 1981 researchers observed a single male finch, normally residing on either Espanola or Gardner Island, on the Island Daphne Major. To their surprise, within two generations a hybrid species had taken hold, exclusively breeding only with other finches descended from the original male [Cepelewicz2017].

Either you don't know how this works or you're trying to impress with a big show without having to put so much as a thought into it. You're overthinking. All you have to do is say birds evolve Jordana Cepelewicz from David Bailey Reference bibliography Then tell me in your own words where the Bible disagrees. But it doesn't, you see? So how can you propose the debunking of the Bible with an article that doesn't even disagree with the Bible. Now if I'm wrong, that's where you have to start doing some thinking on your own. Tell me, in your own words, why you think I'm wrong. Then we have to come to terms with what constitutes debunking and disagreement.

If you say the information you would provide debunks the Bible, rather than the Bible debunking science, how do you decide which is true? The Bible is true because it says it's true? Science is true because it says it's true? The one that came thousands of years before debunks the one after? More people believe in one over the other? Those people know any more what is true than you or I?

Comprehend?

Data, you are not putting on a very good show. Ok, Alexxes drawings may seem both too much information or too little, but if you did anything other than dismiss them as 'Drawings' and understood the theory, you'd at least know what questions to ask.

You asked them about examples I gave, and I explained as well as I could. But you simply found excuses to push it away. Finishing with 'how that disagrees with the Bible' I explained how, but I don't recall you responding.

You exhibit classic denial - you don't understand evolution - theory and you don't want to. You try to make this or that question (e.g sub -species interbreeding) some kind of debunk. And you keep trying to push the Bible into fitting evolution - theory which it doesn't, as though it is the better explanation, for the data, which it isn't. You are doing it all wrong, just as a classic Creationist apologist does.

-Salamanders. Ensatina eschscholtzi is a lungless salamander that ranges along the Pacific Coast from Canada to Mexico. Within this population, seven “subspecies” have been recognized in a ring around the Central Valley of California. About 35 miles southeast of Mount Palomar, near Cuyamaca State Park, these subspecies meet and fail to interbreed — in other words, the two subspecies in this area are different species by the usual definition of the term [Wake1986; Wake2001 ibid.

Oh, if I had a hundred-dollar bill for every time this was puked at me. You know the story. Tell me where it disagrees with the Bible. Good "luck." No problem with the Bible. How many species of each Biblical kind do you propose Noah's ark had to have?! What Biblical kind is the salamander?

Oh if I had a one dollar bill for every time a Creationist denied everything. I already told you how evolution theory debunks the Bible. I don't recall you responding. Problems with the Bible. It gets a lot wrong. Of course 'kinds' is an observation of evolutionary divergence. Species, and speciation shows how it happened. Palaeontology, animal morphology and even DNA provides the evidence. The case is there but you push it away, pretend you don't understand or (it seems) ignore me since I answered all your points.

You want to debate the Ark and its' practicalities? Fine, but why should we let you slither onto some other topic while ignoring (it seems) that I have made all the case any reasonable,open -minded person could want?