Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[joshua 1 9]

Yes, most creationists have no understanding of the concept of evidence.. Are you ready to learn?

I am ready for you to show that an archaeology site is not evidence for anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am ready for you to show that an archaeology site is not evidence for anything.

Yes, but evidence for what. Just because something is evidence for "something" does not mean that it is evidence for your beliefs. Why did you dodge my question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello All!

Yes, In my recent article, I list 14 examples backed by Bible passages that reveal why and how science confirms the accuracy of the Holy Bible.
The very first verse in the Bible reveals an important scientific theory:
In Genesis 1:1 – God declares “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”! Hebrews 11:3 tells us that the universe was framed by the word of God.
The Science Connection: Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity actually supports that the Universe as well as mass, energy and time all had a beginning, and that some “entity” must have been responsible for its beginning.

Below is my article:
http://robertritebooks.com/how-science-actually-confirms-the-accuracy-of-the-bible/

Best,
Robert Rite

Sorry, but you are just making the mistake of reinterpreting the Bible based upon the findings of modern science. There is no evidence for an "entity" starting the universe.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes, but evidence for what.

Yes, exactly, so by your own admission your statement "evidence for nothing" is not a true statement. Although there is so little that we agree on to the point where I do not see any reason to even discuss the question of: "evidence for what".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, exactly, so by your own admission your statement "evidence for nothing" is not a true statement. Although there is so little that we agree on to the point where I do not see any reason to even discuss the question of: "evidence for what".

Oh please, at least try to act like an adult here. It is quite clear that you have no evidence for your beliefs. But as I have pointed out many times most creationists have no idea what evidence is or how it is used. You could be a much better debater if you understood this simple concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you're going to attack a walled city without artillery or siege equipment, your best bet is to have a man on the inside who can sneak some of your people in to cause havoc at the opportune time.

We know from the Bible that at the battle of Jericho, the Israelites had just such an inside man... woman, actually.

Actually you don't "know that", that is merely the version of the story in the Bible. We don't even know if Jericho was a real city or not. Simply finding an old city in the middle east that looked like it had a wall at one point in time does not really support the story at all.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Oh please, at least try to act like an adult here. It is quite clear that you have no evidence for your beliefs. But as I have pointed out many times most creationists have no idea what evidence is or how it is used. You could be a much better debater if you understood this simple concept.

Ok, why don't we start with you showing me the evidence you have to support atheism.

 

[Murby]

Ok, why don't we start with you showing me the evidence you have to support atheism.

It doesn't work that way, but I understand how someone without any science background might think it does.

There is an invisible alien hovering over your house in his invisible spaceship that is engulfed within a temporal phase shift.
Prove its not there.

See how that doesn't work? I can say the core of Pluto is made of Cheddar Cheese.. I can even write a book about it if you like.. Does that make it so? Are you going to believe Pluto is made of cheddar cheese now?

The argument you made above is so invalid that it speaks volumes about your rationalization of the subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, why don't we start with you showing me the evidence you have to support atheism.

That is a nonsensical demand. It seems that your ignorance includes not understanding what atheism is either. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. So just as your belief cannot be questioned here if you say "I believe in God", you cannot question my belief if I say "I do not believe in God".

What did you think atheism is?

 

[Extraneous]

That is a nonsensical demand. It seems that your ignorance includes not understanding what atheism is either. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. So just as your belief cannot be questioned here if you say "I believe in God", you cannot question my belief if I say "I do not believe in God".

What did you think atheism is?

Makes sense to me. I think you are being a bit harsh and unreasonable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Makes sense to me. I think you are being a bit harsh and unreasonable.

Wait, you just contradicted yourself. You said my post makes sense to you and then you said I was being harsh and unreasonable. Why are you on both sides of this issue.

And my explanation was very straight forward. And more than reasonable, considering the rather ignorant question asked.

How do you think that Joshua would have reacted if I asked him "Ok, why don't we start with you showing me the evidence you have to support your claim that you believe in God?" Such a question is actually against the rules here.

 

[Extraneous]

Wait, you just contradicted yourself. You said my post makes sense to you and then you said I was being harsh and unreasonable. Why are you on both sides of this issue.

And my explanation was very straight forward. And more than reasonable, considering the rather ignorant question asked.

How do you think that Joshua would have reacted if I asked him "Ok, why don't we start with you showing me the evidence you have to support your claim that you believe in God?" Such a question is actually against the rules here.

Sorry for the confusion, i can see how that might have appeared that way, but I was instead saying that the request made by joshua 1 9 made sense.

 

[VirOptimus]

Sorry for the confusion, i can see how that might have appeared that way, but I was instead saying that the request made by joshua 1 9 made sense.

It doesnt. The burden of proof is on the one claiming a positive (there is god(s)) not the other way around.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry for the confusion, i can see how that might have appeared that way, but I was instead saying that the request made by joshua 1 9 made sense.

Sorry, but it doesn't. Did you understand my explanation to him and to you? How would you react if I demanded evidence for your belief in God? How could you prove that you believe in God except to say so. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. That question is from an extremely dishonest Christian apologist, I forgot which one, but I do believe that he has a radio show. It is a very poorly asked question.


A more reasonable question would have been "Why don't you believe in God?" But he did not ask that.

 

[Extraneous]

Sorry, but it doesn't. Did you understand my explanation to him and to you? How would you react if I demanded evidence for your belief in God? How could you prove that you believe in God except to say so. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. That question is from an extremely dishonest Christian apologist, I forgot which one, but I do believe that he has a radio show. It is a very poorly asked question.


A more reasonable question would have been "Why don't you believe in God?" But he did not ask that.

I guess my point was that its no more unreasonable to ask for proof that God doesn't exist, than to ask for proof that he does exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess my point was that its no more unreasonable to ask for proof that God doesn't exist, than to ask for proof that he does exist.

But one does not need to prove that he does not exist. One only has to explain that there is no reliable or reasonable reason to believe in such an entity. Belief should follow evidence, not the other way around.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Actually you don't "know that", that is merely the version of the story in the Bible. We don't even know if Jericho was a real city or not. Simply finding an old city in the middle east that looked like it had a wall at one point in time does not really support the story at all.

Actually, we do "know that." The presence of an insider during the battle of Jericho is right there in the Bible itself -- Rahab.

Now, whether or not the city mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho is in fact the right city is not the point. The point is that even as the wartime propaganda (which is basically what the account of the battle of Jericho is) gave the credit to the divine, the text itself offers a clue as to a more mundane possibility: The Israelites had someone on the inside who had the ability to smuggle people out of the city (and thus, the ability to smuggle them in) and the ability to hide those people already inside.

Six days of the Israelite army marching around the city would allow five nights of sneaking in, a few at time, a small band of soldiers who, on a prearranged signal (one that would preferably also serve as a distraction to the soldiers on the walls) take Jericho's gatehouse and open it, or take a section of the walls and hold it long enough for more soldiers to climb over the top.

According to the Bible, exactly such a signal was given on the sixth day of the siege. The rest, as they say, may or may not be history.

Whether or not any of this actually happened is irrelevant. It's all there in the story itself.

 

[bhsmte]

It doesn't work that way, but I understand how someone without any science background might think it does.

There is an invisible alien hovering over your house in his invisible spaceship that is engulfed within a temporal phase shift.
Prove its not there.

See how that doesn't work? I can say the core of Pluto is made of Cheddar Cheese.. I can even write a book about it if you like.. Does that make it so? Are you going to believe Pluto is made of cheddar cheese now?

The argument you made above is so invalid that it speaks volumes about your rationalization of the subject.

You know they are starting to get desperate, when you see them shift the burden of proof and ask you to prove a negative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, we do "know that." The presence of an insider during the battle of Jericho is right there in the Bible itself -- Rahab.

Now, whether or not the city mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho is in fact the right city is not the point. The point is that even as the wartime propaganda (which is basically what the account of the battle of Jericho is) gave the credit to the divine, the text itself offers a clue as to a more mundane possibility: The Israelites had someone on the inside who had the ability to smuggle people out of the city (and thus, the ability to smuggle them in) and the ability to hide those people already inside.

Six days of the Israelite army marching around the city would allow five nights of sneaking in, a few at time, a small band of soldiers who, on a prearranged signal (one that would preferably also serve as a distraction to the soldiers on the walls) take Jericho's gatehouse and open it, or take a section of the walls and hold it long enough for more soldiers to climb over the top.

According to the Bible, exactly such a signal was given on the sixth day of the siege. The rest, as they say, may or may not be history.

Whether or not any of this actually happened is irrelevant. It's all there in the story itself.

No, you don't. We know what the Bible says, but the Bible is not the most reliable of books. That what this thread is about anyway. I am not saying that it could not have happened the way that the Bible says it does. In comparison look how little time it took for stories to grow about the U.S. revolution, and that was with most of the populace being literate.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It doesn't work that way,

This statement always seems to be followed by a strawman argument which is exactly what you did.