Science PROVES the BIBLE is True

[Loudmouth]

Exactly and the point is: using what is currently known about science does not conflict with the Bible in any way. Current science verifies that the Bible is accurate and true.

The Bible says that the Earth does not move. Does science support that?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible says that the Earth does not move.

Assuming that's true, it moves now though.

 

[Loudmouth]

Assuming that's true, it moves now though.

Science demonstrates that it has always been moving.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science demonstrates that it has always been moving.

So what?

Science can demonstrate Thalidomide to relieve prenatal symptoms.

 

[florida2]

These books are based on witchcraft and sorcery. We are living in the great apostasy (falling away from the truth) Before primer books like this needed to be more veiled but now we are getting close to the end then evil is more rampant. I remember a girl once when she was told how evil and wicked Harry Potter books were she was shocked and amazed. There was a friend of mine that use to go out to the festivals with a huge banner so he could educate the young people to christian perspective about these books. He was sort of a Arthur Blessitt type. Sometimes he would carry a big cross.

Congratulations on completely missing (or deliberately ignoring) the point made in my post. It's quite a talent you have.

You can pick out literally any book and it will have features from the real world. That does not mean it's true.

Pointing out that the bible features day and night and that means the whole thing is therefore 100% is a bit silly. By your thinking every single book that features day and night is 100% true.

I have no doubt you are sincere in your beliefs but please think through your points before making them.

 

[florida2]

You got it backwards. There is no evidence to show that they did not live to be 1,000 years old. You have the burden of proof, not me. There are also clay tablets outside of the Bible. The book of kings that shows people living very long lives back then.

Science considers aging to be a disease. IF people do not age then they are not going to look older. I did the research on this. What was the cause of death of pre-civilized people. It is always the same. They were killed in the "prime" of their life from a weapon like an arrowhead. So what do you have? I would be glad to see your evidence of a pre civilization person that died from old age. Show me your evidence because the evidence that we have verifys that people could have lived that long back then.

So you think that every single person in ancient history died a violent death? What are you on about?

 

[Loudmouth]

So what?

Science can demonstrate Thalidomide to relieve prenatal symptoms.

And yet another dishonest attempt at changing the topic.

We have yet another confirmation that the scientific evidence does not support the Bible.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So you think that every single person in ancient history died a violent death? What are you on about?

I have no idea what every person died from. All I know is what I have been able to study and this shows that everyone died in the prime of life and they were killed in an act of violence. Often these remains are investigated as a murder and somewhere along the way they find that the remains are many thousands of years old. The meaning of this is that they did not age back then. That is why they claim that people only lived to be 35 because that is how old the remains look to be. The history books tell us that people lived a lot longer then 35 years. Look at La Chapelle-aux-Saints for example. He lived 40,000 years ago and he is said to only be 40 years of age, even though he did not have any of his teeth.

 

[florida2]

I have no idea what every person died from. All I know is what I have been able to study and this shows that everyone died in the prime of life. Meaning that they did not age back then.

Everyone? That's a heck of a claim. Evidence? Are you talking about average lifespan?

What sort of time period are we talking about?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have no idea what every person died from. All I know is what I have been able to study and this shows that everyone died in the prime of life. Meaning that they did not age back then.

If we find someone who died of old age during that time, would that disprove the Bible?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Pointing out that the bible features day and night and that means the whole thing is therefore 100% is a bit silly.

The REASON science can not prove ALL of the Bible to be true is because of the limitations of science. There is NOTHING in the Bible that science can falsify. So for me this is MORE then enough. There is an overwhelming amount that the Bible CAN prove is accurate and true and there is NOTHING that Science can falsify. Even the author of the Skeptics Bible admits that EVERYTHING is the Bible can be explained and verified.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If we find someone who died of old age during that time, would that disprove the Bible?

What do you got? Because I can not find any sign of degenerate disease in pre historic man. This all has to do with the Noah Covenant and this is why NOAH is so important.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There is NOTHING in the Bible that science can falsify.

Unfalsifiable claims are worthless. Science cannot disprove that there is an invisible teapot too small to be detected by telescopes orbiting around the moon right now. Therefore, this teapot exists!

There is an overwhelming amount that the Bible CAN prove is accurate and true and there is NOTHING that Science can falsify.

Your circular reasoning is not proof of anything.

Even the author of the Skeptics Bible admits that EVERYTHING is the Bible can be explained and verified.

Steve Wells is an atheist. Your claim is demonstrably false. Why would you lie about someone?

 

[Loudmouth]

What do you got? Because I can not find any sign of degenerate disease in pre historic man. This all has to do with the Noah Covenant and this is why NOAH is so important.

Just answer the question.

If we found a pre-historic person who died of a degenerative disease or old age, would this disprove the Bible?

 

[Commander]

Paul said, in Romans 9:10-18, that God decided before we were born who was to be saved and who was to be damned, and that it is his choice, not ours.

It was Tertius who wrote the epistle to the Romans not Paul. But Paul does tell us when he writes to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:10 that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of all men(this includes you), specially of those that believe. So it does not matter what you or anyone else believes, but when you know the truth you know that every one believes in God(Do you love someone? 1 John 4:7). Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour saved every one. For God will have all men come to the knowledge of the truth.- 1 Timothy 2:4.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour saved every one.

Who saved the rich man in Luke 16?

Luke 16:23a And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments,

 

[joshua 1 9]

If we found a pre-historic person who died of a degenerative disease or old age, would this disprove the Bible?

It would disprove my theory about the Bible. This would disprove my interpretation. If I can disprove evolution it just means you have to rewrite the theory. That is why Darwinism is no longer valid and we now have neoDarwinism and PostNeoDarwinism. They just keep rewriting the theory trying to get it right. Before DNA we only had the fossil record. Now that we have DNA that has caused radical changes in the theory.

We know that Noah's flood was not a world wide flood. That does not disprove the Bible. It just means we need a better understanding to suppose what we currently know about the Bible. You have to go where the evidence takes you. If your not willing to go with the evidence then you are against science. The evidence overwhelmingly shows the Bible is accurate and true. So if you are anti Bible then you by default are anti Science. Because the Scientific Evidence verifies that the Bible is accurate and true beyond any question or doubt.

A true man of God is a man of Science and a True Man of Science is a man of God. Science points to God as being true and the Bible shows us that Science is accurate and true.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Paul said, in Romans 9:10-18, that God decided before we were born who was to be saved and who was to be damned, and that it is his choice, not ours.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Esau is a type of the flesh or the Old Nature. Jacob is a type of the New Nature we have as Born Again Believers. The old and the new war against each other.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You might find it more intellectually satisfying if you did.

You think it is more "satisfying" to be intellectually dishonest and apostate? The Bible does say that sin has it's pleasure for a season. The truth sets us free and I find freedom to be better then bondage.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That is why Darwinism is no longer valid and we now have neoDarwinism and PostNeoDarwinism.

Nobody uses these ridiculous terms Joshua. This is just your sad attempt to make it sound like dogma. It's just the theory of evolution.

They just keep rewriting the theory trying to get it right. Before DNA we only had the fossil record. Now that we have DNA that has caused radical changes in the theory.

Can you point to certain research papers where it caused the theory to drastically change? The theory of evolution has been right from the start. DNA IMPROVED the theory. The fossil record could cease to exist and the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.

The evidence overwhelmingly shows the Bible is accurate and true.

Because the Scientific Evidence verifies that the Bible is accurate and true beyond any question or doubt.

Care to cite the scientific research that reaches these conclusions? If you cannot, then you are just talking in circles.
Genesis has long been falsified. It is not a literal story. It is in allegorical myth.