• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
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?
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
I can't think of any.

It kind of just happens that way. We gain new information about something and just as a side effect, old information in the bible turns out to be wrong.
 

Baydwin

Well-Known Member
I can't think of any.

It kind of just happens that way. We gain new information about something and just as a side effect, old information in the bible turns out to be wrong.
Couldn't have put it much better than that. I can't think of any scientists who make it their business to disprove the Bible either.
 

no-body

Well-Known Member
Not on purpose I don't think. Historians discovering things like David and Goliath and The Exodus and Moses probably never existed because they are based on older myths. They find evidence thousands of years before of these stories in older religions but can find no proof that these people existed during the time periods the bible says.
 
Actually there are those who use the doctrines of Christianity to disprove the bible. However, just because you can scientifically disprove the doctrine doesn't mean you've disproved the bible, as it's thought it would. It only proves the interpretation is flawed and those who have used the flaw as if it was a genuine representation of the message have been deceived as well. If one would read the message for what it is they would find it already proves its case against the doctrines. This probably isn't done out of fear it may have to be accepted as possible truth and in doing so it would crush their ally.
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
Charles Darwin.



Actually Charles Darwin went out of his way in "Origin of the Species" to include god into the theory. Often times he would put forth some idea about natural selection and then end it with something like "in accordance with the will of god". Darwin even put off the release of his findings for years because he knew the church would take offense to it.
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
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?

Dont' know of any.

Not sure what you mean by disprove. Stories from specific books of the Bible have been addressed by scientists. They often make for entertaining programs on the History channel.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
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?
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.
 

Commoner

Headache
really?
How do you make that particular leap?

Or perhaps you are referring to something he did pertaining to abiogenesis?

You don't think humans and other animals being created in their "current form" is at odds with the concept of evolution?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
:)
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.
He has popularized a somewhat centrist position while pushing a chronology which is still far from generally accepted. While his most popular work (The Bible Unearthed) is certainly readable and entertaining, his major scientific contrubution to the field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology was his statistical work demonstrating a gradual evolution (ethnogenesis) of Israel in the highlands, effectively debunking the "conquest model" presented in the Bible. Still, more reflective of the current consensus would be the work of folks like Amihai Mazar.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I think that in the case of the particular holy book it's pretty much an all-or-nothing proposition. :)
Perhaps for those who take the Bible literally.
But what about all the creation myths that do not rely upon literal translations?

I wonder what the majority of Christians actually believe?

And even if the part about "humans and other animals being created in their "current form"" is debunked, it is no way proves that creation did not happen.
 
Top