Science And The Bible - Introduction

[Daystar]

If you are criticizing the Bible the burden of proof is on you. You can dismiss the Bible with or without evidence, obviously you know this, but if you publicly criticize it the burden is upon you. You fail in this.

No, thats not how the burden of proof works. The has to be actual evidence of the truth of the bible before I have to disprove it. And if any believer, such as yourself, claims its truth then the burden is on you. The default position is non-truth until any evidence for truth is shown. IF the bible then really does show evidence of its truth (and it never has so far and I don't see how it could really), THEN the burden of proof moves to me. And the atheists. Until then the burden of proof is on you and the bible. The burden of proof is on the believer.
By your logic then that means you have to disprove the flying spaghetti monster rather than a believer in the FSM to have to prove it?
And that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the 'truth' of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Keeping mind that I have explained to you that I am not at all interested in proving anything to you, your science etc. It isn't my burden it is yours.

Keeping that in mind. If I showed you tons of examples where the Bible was proven right by science and archaeology that would impress you to what degree? Not that I think it would be important, just out of curiosity.

And just going over what you said, for fun -

1. There has to be actual evidence of the truth of the Bible before you have to disprove it. In other words you are just this hapless guy floating around in the universe and criticizing the Bible which you have never read. That is science and that is evidence.

So if you decided to criticize Newton’s theory of gravity you wouldn’t have to know it at all and it would be up to Newton’s work Principia or those who believe in it to challenge it. The burden of proof would be upon them.

2. The default position is non-proof. Never mind that either the Bible or Principia had already made their position of truth known you were just too lazy or indoctrinated with your own thing to have bothered with it. I have to show you.

3. So . . . Until the Atheists such as yourself actually get around to doing anything other than making baseless claims of complete ignorance about the Bible and their own disbelief regarding said works it is up to me to ‘prove’ their respective truths to you, who are not going to believe anything I say because it doesn’t fit in with their lobotomized and similar unproven theory of evolution which you also know almost next to nothing about.

Wouldn’t it be easier, EVF, for you to prove evolution to me? That is now my challenge to you. The burden of proof is upon you and oh, I know you won’t take that lightly!

Well … c’mon, then! Lets see you!

Lets save the FSM for later adventures for now.

[Edwardo Piet]

Keeping mind that I have explained to you that I am not at all interested in proving anything to you, your science etc. It isn't my burden it is yours.

. Thats not the burden of proof. Neither of us HAVE to prove anything. What it means that IF anyone has to its you because you are the one who says the bible is true. I say its not true but I don't have to disprove stuff if you give no evidence to disprove. Until you provide proper evidence I don't have to disprove anything. Sure we can BOTH not go about proving anything. But then what are we talking about? How can we really discuss God without getting into the matter of whether any of this is true or not? I'm not interested in discussing it as mere fiction. If however you actually claim its true I am interesting to have a debate on that. And I am open to evidence.

Keeping that in mind. If I showed you tons of examples where the Bible was proven right by science and archaeology that would impress you to what degree? Not that I think it would be important, just out of curiosity.

What examples? How does any of the 'proofs' you give, give any proof of God or anything supernatural? If it doesn't then whats the point thats just science. I'm all in favor science. Its the idea that there's evidence of the truth of the supernatural that I have problems with. You haven't given me any proof of that. I am open to the proof of that. I'm interested in debating that. I am a de facto atheist but I enjoy discussing religion and God because its an important issue to address. I'm not so interested in just discussing the bible as fiction. I might read it all one day. But there's plenty of other fiction I prefer. Find less outdated and more interesting. And less horror without even meaning to be a 'horror story'. People accept the bible as truth and not fiction and thats one of the problems.

1. In other words you are just this hapless guy floating around in the universe and criticizing the Bible which you have never read. That is science and that is evidence.

No thats what I'm interested in. And I find religion to be unscientific/anti-scientific and I don't approve of 'faith' because it is not backed up by evidence. If it was it wouldn't need to be called faith. And I find the God question interesting and I am open to evidence. Since you can't disprove God. He's just extremely improbable and has no evidence to back him up Thus far at least. We can't see into the future but I doubt he'll reveal himself considering how improbable he is.

So if you decided to criticize Newton’s theory of gravity you wouldn’t have to know it at all and it would be up to Newton’s work Principia or those who believe in it to challenge it. The burden of proof would be upon them.

No because it is already proved. So its on me to disprove it. If I thought it was on them they wouldn't have to prove it to me. Because its not on them. They could just tell me where the evidence is or to just read a book about it lol. The point is all the evidence is there if I wanted to look at it. If you can show me some links or source of proof of the bible other than the bible itself - merely proclaiming that it is 'self evident'. Then fine. But simply using the bible as proof of the bible is absurd. its circular reasoning. What I've read of it, the bible appears totally ridiculous. Probably because it was written so long ago! If you're asking me to read the whole damned bible then...lets talk about something else. Because I consider it a waste of time. There is no evidence in there that supports God at all that I've read so far. Its not like I've never read any of it. If there was surely you could just provide one quote or something or do it in bits since we're discussing it. Just like someone giving me a map of the world to show me where a country I haven't heard of is. So far any evidence you have supposedly give is false. So the point is if we are going to talk about the bible or the existence of God. If either of us are going to have to give proof its you. The burden of proof is on the believer not the atheist.

2. The default position is non-proof. Never mind that either the Bible or Principia had already made their position of truth known you were just too lazy or indoctrinated with your own thing to have bothered with it. I have to show you.

You don't HAVE to. But if either of us should show it should be you. Because thats the burden of proof. If not then what are we talking about? If you say the bible is truth or that God exists then you have to give evidence of that. The burden of proof is on you.

3. So . . . Until the Atheists such as yourself actually get around to doing anything other than making baseless claims of complete ignorance about the Bible and their own disbelief regarding said works it is up to me to ‘prove’ their respective truths to you, who are not going to believe anything I say because it doesn’t fit in with their lobotomized and similar unproven theory of evolution which you also know almost next to nothing about.

Once again you don't have to prove the bible or God. But I certainly don't have to disprove it. If either of us are going to debate about it you have to prove it.

Wouldn’t it be easier, EVF, for you to prove evolution to me? That is now my challenge to you. The burden of proof is upon you and oh, I know you won’t take that lightly!

Well … c’mon, then! Lets see you!

Well you have already been shown by ace etc, fossils for example. And if I remember correctly he says he's not an expert on evolution. And I'm certainly not. I only understand the basics. The point is that there are tons and tons of fossils supporting it and the evidence supported by DNA is even stronger. You can even get your DNA sequenced. If I wanted to prove this to you I would. But just as I don't want to read the bible particularly perhaps you don't want to read about evolution? If you've read about it then what do you expect ME to do? The difference is that the bible isn't supported by evidence of its truth. Evolution is. You have to understand what counts as evidence first. And btw the FSM is relevant to this. To say that the truth of the bible is self-evident. That it proves itself. Is like saying the Gospel of the FSM proves its own truth.

If the claims in the bible are true how come there is no evidence of these claims about the supernatural in reality?
Evolution fundamentally as I understand it is basically gene survival and replication. And mutation. I haven't looked into genetic drift really. I'm going to get some Dawkins books on evolution I only have TGD so far
I haven't seen all the fossils in the world, but I haven't ever been to australia but I'm pretty sure that it exists
Besides I have actually seen some fossils in outside books, TV and computers. In real life if thats what you would call it

Lets save the FSM for later adventures for now.

There's no evidence of the FSM. There's no evidence of God. Do I have to disprove the FSM? Or is the burden of proof for the FSM on someone who claims that it exists?
Likewise, do I have to disprove God? Or is the burden of proof for God on someone who claims that he exists?
If you don't claim that God exists. Or the 'truth' of the bible supporting the supernatural. Then what are we discussing here?

[Darwinian]

Keeping that in mind. If I showed you tons of examples where the Bible was proven right by science and archaeology that would impress you to what degree? Not that I think it would be important, just out of curiosity.

Yes, but the trouble is that you never do show us tons of examples where the bible is accurate, because there aren't any.

[allan175]

I've heard this sort of statement before (obviously the figures are available in the bible), but ould it actually be possible to build something the size of the Titanic out of wood? I expect there would be a lot of stresses & strains that would make wood impractical.

No. The ark design was a very simple one, really just being a floating chest. This provided more stability and room than a ship like the Titantic of an equal size.

It doesn't matter how simple a design it was, even a floating chest of that size would be subject to enormous stresses, and wood is just not up to the task.

[Purple Rabbit]

It doesn't matter how simple a design it was, even a floating chest of that size would be subject to enormous stresses, and wood is just not up to the task.

Always substantiate your claims. Believe me, I know it's hard work.

[allan175]

It doesn't matter how simple a design it was, even a floating chest of that size would be subject to enormous stresses, and wood is just not up to the task.

Always substantiate your claims. Believe me, I know it's hard work.

Not sure what you are getting at. That is significantly smaller than the dimensions Daystar gave and, most importantly, is not actually floating in water (looks like it is floating on some sort of barge though).

As an aside, they say it can hold "life size elephants and giraffe" and they have two life size elephants standing on some sort of balcony at the top, they seem to have forgotten that "life size" is not the same as "life weight"!

[Darwinian]

As I understand it, this is a faithful reproduction of the ark as dictated by the bible.

I will admit that it is very impressive and it would certainly seem that it could float, but...

There is no way on this Earth that it could possibly hold at least two and in some cases seven of every single species on the planet.

And how did Noah get hold of all those animals from places like Australia, Japan, the Americas, the polar regions? The list goes on.

And after 40 days of global flooding does anyone really expect there to be any plant life left for the inhabitants of the ark to feed upon?

And what about all those species who live in the oceans? Were they exempt from this wrath?

The mind boggles that anyone can actually take this story seriously!

[Kyuuketsuki]

For Daystar, a question:

My contention is that both "micro" & "macro" evolution are creationist inventions (the fact that you buy into this idea is yet another reason to support my contention that you are just another Fundy, admittedly old Earth but just a creationist stooge) whereas evolutionists (whether they accept the nomenclature or not) recognise that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the same thing, adaptation; that if something adapts far enough it changes. Small change plus small change plus small change plus small change plus small change (and so on over vast amounts of time) ultimately results in big change ... it isn't rocket science, given that adaptation happens it's a rational expectation that it will happen.

So the question changes and one has to ask, if creationists (if you) are right, what stops adaptation becoming evolution? What mechanism exists to prevent "micro" evolution becoming "macro"? Assume, if you will, that I am simple minded person; that I need to be told exactly why things happen ... correct me if I'm wrong but, if this simple concept is not true, then there must be something that prevents it so the question you have to answer is what is that mechanism? Can you enlighten me and tell me exactly what the difference is between "micro" & "macro" evolution (without resorting to tiresome clichés like "micro" equals adaption and "macro" equals speciation and what it is that forever stops one becoming the other? It's a simple enough question for ANY decent evolutionist to answer ... what is your answer? You imply there are limits to evolution ... what limits it?

Kyu

[Tiberius]

Tiberius becomes a fundamentalist Christian...or..."Explanations I've seen fundies give to these questions".

There is no way on this Earth that it could possibly hold at least two and in some cases seven of every single species on the planet.

Baby animals are much smaller than their parents. Noah only brought babies aboard the Ark. God probably made sure they fed on their own and didn't need the parents' help.

And how did Noah get hold of all those animals from places like Australia, Japan, the Americas, the polar regions? The list goes on.

The animals came to Noah, so he didn't have to go around collecting them. All animals were near to Noah's home before the flood, and afterwards the water level was lower so there were land bridges connecting continents together. Kangaroos migrated to Australia over these bridges.

And after 40 days of global flooding does anyone really expect there to be any plant life left for the inhabitants of the ark to feed upon?

Noah took plants onto the Ark with him for food, and planted them after the flood had subsided.

And what about all those species who live in the oceans? Were they exempt from this wrath?

All ocean dwelling creatures were fine. Remember, God only wanted to destroy humanity as they had sinned and rejected His word. God had no problem with fish because they were put there to feed man. Also, whoever heard of an evil fish? EVIL FISH!

[Edwardo Piet]

lol