JW

Both sides in this squabble are approaching the discussion from the wrong premise.

Those supporting religion say that science can't prove the Bible wrong and those supporting science say the Bible can't prove itself right.

Both sides are correct because both sides fail to realize that to debate an issue requires that both sides start from the same premise and they never do. The scientific method cannot be applied to supernatural arguments and the supernatural cannot be evaluated by science.

If anyone wants to disprove religion, it must be done from within the religion. If the other side wants to discredit science, it must be with science.

Example: every schoolchild has heard that Noah took two of every kind of animal on the Arc. To disprove that, one would need to show that the Bible refutes itself or at least, that the Bible is inconsistent in its description of the event.

It cannot be argued that so many animals would never fit on one boat or that one family could never have traveled the whole world to collect all those creatures because it can be countered simply by stating that such a feat is well within the power of God.

Example: every science student has heard of the Big Bang and the roughly 14.5 billion year universal timeframe since that event. If you want to refute that theory, you must show where the science comes up short. You cannot argue that the Bible proves that it is only about 6,000 years old.

Proof that the Bible is inconsistent in the story of Noah can be found in the Bible. The Bible says Noah took more than two of some kinds of animal onto the Arc. It also says he took only two of each kind.

Proof that the Big Bang theory is inadequate to explain the universe can be found in science. It is argued logically that since all of the galaxies are speeding away from each other then there must logically have been a single starting point...but it is known that in 5 million years or so, the Andromeda galaxy will smash into the Milky Way. Apparently the galaxies are not all rushing away from one another.

Those are the kinds of arguments that need to be made. Good luck!

chloe815

No you are very wrong God had Noah to build a boat so big that it would sustain all the amimals and noahs family. He didnt go looking for animals God told the Amimals to come to noah two of each kind except every clean beast male and female, fowels of tbe air by seven male and female. And seed to replentish the land you can find this in. Gen chapter seven read tbe whole chapter before ylu say.wrong thinvs about the bible. Funny how this is the only book from.2000 years ago seem to be the one to servive. Now thats your bible study today if you dare.

chloe815

Oh if you read on it will tell you way he took more animals. So he could sacrifice to God sooooo read before you speak

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Opposing camps arguing matters of Faith is an exercise in futility. :wink: It is virtually pointless. :roll:

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Where's the boat? That's what science would ask.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Why don't read about science for you speak.

JW

I agree but it gets annoying to see so much righteous indignation coming from both sides with so little to be indignant about. I have yet to see anyone from either side make a valid argument.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Several months ago there was a short video showing why we no longer have Unicorns. Some poor fools forgot to check to make sure that there was one male and one female when the unicorns were collected, end of species. Two males cannot reproduce, even in San Francisco.

I always wondered about that story. how did Noah know that the two of each species were fertile, and that the offspring would develop to breeding age? Why didn't Noah ask God to provide only pregnant females, then there could have been maybe three of each species and some gene diversity? That's how the daughter of a veterinarian who was interested in animal genetics would think about it. OH well, God's creations do as He tells them to do, except humans, who have free will, and often choose very badly.

SWMBO

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

It's a ridiculous precept anyway. Science doesn't need to prove anything where the Bible is concerned and visa versa. There are NO conflicts between science and the Bible - except those manufactured by one side or the other.

Everything that science has PROVEN, is entirely consistent with everything in the Bible. Note that I said PROVEN, theories are just that - theories. Theories may NOT be used to prove or disprove anything - even though that's what folks are doing.

A theory REMAINS a theory, until it has been proven or disproven through the scientific method, which means it's elements of fact can be replicated by anyone else consistently. We have allowed ourselves to treat theories which have not been DISproven as fact - and that is just plain wrong and always has been.

Alicia Loc: NYC

*************************
I do believe that the bible states the dimensions and methods to be used are given to Noah. It certainly gives the size.

Alicia Loc: NYC

*********************
What about the Theory of Relativity?

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

It's STILL a theory. Elements of this theory are modified all the time, hence it's remaining a theory. A theory is a "working premise", whereby efforts are made to either confirm or disprove said theory.

The "theory" of evolution is the theory that mankind evolved from a lower primate. It is still a theory because there is no definitive proof one way or the other and even THIS theory has been modified periodically, as new "evidence" is found.

Teaching a theory, as though it were a fact, is just wrong. Theories are to be taught AS theories, or works in progress, NOT fact, simply because it is the prevailing theory. That's where people screw up, arguing theories as facts, when they are not.

JW

Sometimes, the tag of theory sticks long after the facts are proven, theory of plate tectonics, germ theory, DNA theory, theory of evolution by natural se******n, atomic theory, etc. Those things are all beyond question but there are aspects of each that are still murky.

Alicia Loc: NYC

************
What would you do when if you dropped something, it remained there or rose? I'd call the Theory of Gravity to have weathered the time and be considered a proof. Unless, of course, you have another "theory."

I maintain that heaven and hell are also theories. Neither has been proven.

JW

That is actually a very good example of what I was mentioning. There is no doubt that we understand gravity. We would never have made it around the moon, much less to the moon, if we didn't understand it. It remains a theory only because we really don't know what it is.