Has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible?

[Autodidact]

Charles Darwin.

Please please please stop displaying your utter, total, complete ignorance of Darwin, Darwin's work, and the Theory of Evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Darwin was alarmed and appalled when he realized he threatened the religious orthodoxy of his day, and suppressed his work for decades for that reason.

 

[Autodidact]

Israel Finkelstein from my department has become somewhat of a superstar around the world in disproving many of the historical details of the bible. he should have at least a couple of best sellers on Amazon for you to look into.

Your department?! How cool!!

But he doesn't set out to disprove the Bible, does he? He just sets out to find out what happened, and it turns out that the Bible is sometimes right and sometimes wrong, no?

 

[Autodidact]

Logician



If the bible does not need to be disproven because you think it is so obvious that it’s wrong, then prove that the bible is just a story and that it’s obviously wrong and fictional like Alice and wonderland. There are many folks out there including myself who think the bible is true, so it’s not so “obviously fictional” to us. So prove to us, that the bible is “just a story”.

You say that it’s obviously a story and don’t need to be disproven, in other words, you don’t need to prove your assertion that “the bible is just a story”, well, yes you do, otherwise I will take your assertion at that, as just an assertion. Do you think your assertion is true just because you say so? You think something is true because you say so? I say no, something is only true if it has REASONS or a CASE or EVIDENCE for it. So give me this evidence that the bible is “just a story”.

I’m all about PROOF, and EVIDENCE and REASONS and building a CASE. I don’t believe in baseless self built opinions and assertions. I am not moved by them, nor should anyone be.

Sounds good, shall we start a thread? I'll just say it's not about proof, though, but about evidence.

I'm curious, in what basis did you decide that the Bible is correct? What made you reach that conclusion?

 

[Alceste]

T
I am glad you happily oblige, so yes I still need you to prove to me that it is not factually correct. Can you give me ONE proof that the bible is not factually correct? One for now and we will discuss on it and then we can go to the next one. Thanks.

Psalms 93:1

"the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved" (KJV)
"The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved" (NIV)

Whoops.

 

[C_U_N_Hell]

Anyone know of any scientist(s) peer reviewed that made it their purpose to disprove the things of the bible, and that was their primary concern in life in regard to science?

You do know that it is impossible to prove a negative, right?

 

[McBell]

Speak for yourself. I'll take the truth over a comforting fiction any day.

Ditto

 

[Walkntune]

Speak for yourself. I'll take the truth over a comforting fiction any day.

What is this truth you are speaking of???

 

[freethinker44]

You do know that it is impossible to prove a negative, right?

Isn't knowing that something is impossible proof of a negative?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Tumbleweed41



What I meant was where is the evidence that there is no evidence for the bible being accurate?

For the third time, there is no evidence available to support the Biblical story.

You also said that you would happily oblige “proving” to me that the bible is not factually correct. I would like for you to show me that proof that it’s not factually correct.

No, that was Alceste.

You should read it first - cover to cover. If you still need someone to "prove" to you it is not factually correct I will happily oblige.

:sarcastic

Archeology is a part of science and there is tons of archeology evidence that corroborates the biblical stories. I can give you one if you would like, just request.

Just one? Provide me with four. If I grant you those four, you can give me another four.

And what are those “disproven” parts of the bible based on literal interpretation that you speak about?

Lets start with Genetics and Reproduction
Genesis 30:37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
30:38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Does it really matter what conclusions science comes too? Science is not the proper way to view reality much less spiritual concepts.

Wrong, science deals with reality only. Spiritual and supernatural concepts fall into the realm of pseudoscience and theology.

The mind can only see one point of reference at a time in a logical or rational perspective because of the theory of relativity.

The Theory of Relativity is not a "thing" that can be a cause. It is a scientific theory explaining certain attributes of physics.

Awareness can be aware of all points of reference at a time or see one or all perspectives of time at the same time.Awareness is the proper way to view reality and it's the fight and flight response in us or in other words where faith and fear our found and also intuition.We are designed to observe reality with our awareness and then our rational logical minds reason out what we observe.Our Logic and rational minds were not designed to dictate or rationalize reality itself as it can only rationalize one point of reference at a time.

Are you Aware of how Irrational you sound?

Unfortunately if we choose to let our mind dictate what we see and guide us then we become unaware of so much of reality because our awareness lines up with our rational or logical minds but if we choose to open up our awareness to reality then we have the ability to choose and see between many perspectives.Science will forever keep changing(as awareness leads it so) trying to find truth!

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Speak for yourself. I'll take the truth over a comforting fiction any day.

As will I.

 

[Autodidact]

*raises hand*

 

[Walkntune]

The Theory of Relativity is not a "thing" that can be a cause. It is a scientific theory explaining certain attributes of physics.

If this(underlined above) is your explanation for what the theory of relativity is then you are just expressing a very shallow interpretation of a theory that has shaken the very foundation of the psychology of man and how he perceives the world.
You have really said nothing else in your post except through out a dogmatic view point with no significant meaning.
Science can only observe one perspective in our awareness at a time.Our awareness is open to all perspectives. Are you going to refute this with good reasoning????

 

[McBell]

Science can only observe one perspective in our awareness at a time.Our awareness is open to all perspectives. Are you going to refute this with good reasoning????

PLease list off these "perspectives" that you speak about.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If this(underlined above) is your explanation for what the theory of relativity is then you are just expressing a very shallow interpretation of a theory that has shaken the very foundation of the psychology of man and how he perceives the world.

Psychology?:foot:

You have really said nothing else in your post except through out a dogmatic view point with no significant meaning.

Ah yes, the dogmatic, yet fluid and mutable Scientific Method.

Science can only observe one perspective in our awareness at a time.Our awareness is open to all perspectives. Are you going to refute this with good reasoning????

Are you going to explain your gibberish? Then perhaps we can look at it reasonably.

 

[C_U_N_Hell]

Isn't knowing that something is impossible proof of a negative?

No. "Knowing" something isn't proof of anything. You would first have to establish why or how you know it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Really? Where is that evidence, can I have it? Give me ONE evidence and we can talk about that, and then if I grant you that one, you can give me another one. But just one for now and I can examine it. Thanks.

Ok then. For starters, Gilgamesh documented a global flood long before Noah, which shows the Bible isn't original. There is no evidence to support Moses and the Exodus. And had the plagues happened, it would have been recorded by the Egyptians. Not Biblical entirely, but we also know that the earth, even man, is older than 10,000 years old. We know the world simply cannot hold still, as that would left some very obvious evidence. Shall I continue?

If this(underlined above) is your explanation for what the theory of relativity is then you are just expressing a very shallow interpretation of a theory that has shaken the very foundation of the psychology of man and how he perceives the world.

Relativity has absolutely nothing to do with psychology. It is a theory that is based in physics, that deals with space-time and gravity, especially with gravitational pulls of celestial bodies. It indeed has shaken up the world of science, but it does not deal with the mind. It has however, helped give birth to quantum physics.

 

[footprints]

PLease list off these "perspectives" that you speak about.

Too long to list, so I will generalise.

Life itself and everything anybody sees, feels, smells, tastes, and hears in it.

 

[footprints]

Wrong, science deals with reality only. Spiritual and supernatural concepts fall into the realm of pseudoscience and theology.

Wrong. Personally if I were you, I would have a look at the full scope of science, and not just that which supports your view.

If spirituality is real, which by the way it is, science does deal with it. Right now in science Buddhism is being put under the microscope (so to speak). And if you want my opinon, about time too, sooner or later a person of objective thinking had to enter the field science and not live in instant denial.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wrong. Personally if I were you, I would have a look at the full scope of science, and not just that which supports your view.

I can quote my own psychology book if you want me to. Science is based strictly on an empirical approach. This meaning, all things science must have hard, concrete, definite answers, and things that anyone can observe, not just some people.
Anything that deals with religion, spiritualism, supernatural, etc., falls under pseudoscience because of it's non-empirical nature. Even UFO's and aliens fall under pseudoscience. It's not that most scientist reject such studies, it's because there is no way to scientifically approach such issues. The motto when looking at pseudoscience tends to be "can't prove it, can't disprove it." And while most ideas can be easily disproved with simple experiments and closer looks, some (very few actually) show results that remain unexplained so far.
And the full scope of science is to explain and understand the world we live in.