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

[Commoner]

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?

Well, that would be interesting to know, but I think the more relevant question might be what they believed in the 19th century - the point at which the proposed "disproof of creation myth" is supposed to have occurred.

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.

No - and proving that I'm lying doesn't prove the things I'm saying aren't actually true. Anyway, I don't think anyone was suggesting it does.

 

[sonofskeptish]

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.

The post was a reply to a creationist who takes the bible literally (I think).

 

[McBell]

The post was a reply to a creationist who takes the bible literally (I think).

Ah.
Fair enough

 

[Alceste]

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?

Scientists do not take the proposition that the bible contains factual information seriously enough to try to "disprove" it. It's just a book of stories. Do scientists attempt to "disprove" Winnie the Pooh? Do you think they should?

 

[McBell]

Scientists do not take the proposition that the bible contains factual information seriously enough to try to "disprove" it. It's just a book of stories. Do scientists attempt to "disprove" Winnie the Pooh? Do you think they should?

ooo
ooo

I vote they debunk Lord of the Rings series!

 

[logician]

The "bible" is just a story - i.e. like "Alice in Wonderland", it doesn't need disproving.

 

[sonofskeptish]

Actually, the bible kinda disproves itself.

 

[footprints]

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?

Science isn't in the business of proving anything, it is the business of science to try and explain things. People will make themselves as comfortable as possible in any given situation, the acquisition of knowledge isn't different. If a person gains some knowledge which goes with their beliefs and tends to support it, they will hold onto this knowledge as if it were gospel.

History and the Bible often do not conincide, albeit this means putting a time period to relevant stories in the bible which are so far in the past, we can never be sure exactly what time period they may pertain to.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

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.

Does his statistical work take into account that a gradual evolution and a conquest model could have co-existed?

I have not read it, so I was just curious.

Thanks.

 

[Alceste]

People will make themselves as comfortable as possible in any given situation, the acquisition of knowledge isn't different. If a person gains some knowledge which goes with their beliefs and tends to support it, they will hold onto this knowledge as if it were gospel.

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

 

[Jollybear]

Logician

The "bible" is just a story - i.e. like "Alice in Wonderland", it doesn't need disproving.

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.

 

[tumbleweed41]

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.

Conversely, there is no evidence available to support the Biblical story.

Without supporting evidence there is no need to prove it wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

While Darwin's work disproves the creation myth, he did not set out to disprove the bible. Think of it a collatoral damage.

Personally, I think Darwin's theory makes the story of the Biblical creation make since. We can't assume that the days of creation are the literal 24 hour days we know, and when you look at a day as a long period of time, and take into effect that man is the new kid on the block (both in Darwin's theory and Creationism), and you have a much better approach to Creationism. It not only makes since, it explains dinosaurs, fossil records, the appearance of fossil fuels, and many other things that the Bible can't explain on it's own.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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

Indeed - some of us are more comforted by the truth than others.

 

[Alceste]

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.

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.

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

Conversely, there is no evidence available to support the Biblical story.

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.

Alceste

You should read it first - cover to cover.

I have read it about 28 times now, from cover to cover, and that is not including studying it for over 16 years now and having many debates about it too. And doing other research related to it.

If you still need someone to "prove" to you it is not factually correct I will happily oblige.

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.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Conversely, there is no evidence available to support the Biblical story.

Without supporting evidence there is no need to prove it wrong.

Tumbleweed41
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.

What evidence are you talking about? I stated that there is no evidence available to support the Biblical story.

In fact the entire purpose of this thread was to determine if science has been used to specifically target the debunking of the Bible as a whole. The overwhelming conclusion would be, no, it has not. At least not by reputable scientists.However, we do know that certain aspects of a literal interpretation of the Bible have been disproven as a byproduct of advancements in human knowledge.

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

What evidence are you talking about? I stated that there is no evidence available to support the Biblical story.

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

In fact the entire purpose of this thread was to determine if science has been used to specifically target the debunking of the Bible as a whole. The overwhelming conclusion would be, no, it has not. At least not by reputable scientists.However,

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.

we do know that certain aspects of a literal interpretation of the Bible have been disproven as a byproduct of advancements in human knowledge.

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

 

[Walkntune]

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?

Does it really matter what conclusions science comes too? Science is not the proper way to view reality much less spiritual concepts. The mind can only see one point of reference at a time in a logical or rational perspective because of the theory of relativity. 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.
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!

 

[Autodidact]

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?

No. In particular, not per doing science, no. I don't think they think that's the way to do science. Science isn't about setting out to prove or disprove things; it's about finding out the truth, and chips fall where they may.