Science PROVES the BIBLE is True

[joshua 1 9]

Unfalsifiable claims are worthless.

There are huge, huge, huge opportunities to disprove the Bible. Only no one has ever been able to disprove the Bible. The Bible is very exact and very precise.

 

[Commander]

And yes science does prove the Bible right. Genesis 1:27 states " So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them". When we look at our 23 pairs of Chromosomes we find that there are both male and female chromosomes in each and every one of us "male and female created he them". To some he(mankind) is a heterosexual: meaning other/different sex(X and Y chromosomes), a bisexual: meaning two sexes(X and Y chromosomes), or a homosexual: meaning like/same sex(X and Y chromosomes). We all start out as a single celled zygote, then a fetus and grow as a human being, getting bigger and stronger, and acquire knowledge as we get older, which some would call evolution, and I, a Christian see as the life cycle of a human being.

 

[AV1611VET]

We all start out as a single celled zygote, then a fetus and grow as a human being,

According to Haeckel, don't we become fish at one point?

And didn't Jesus say He would make us abortionists ("fishers of men")?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Nobody uses these ridiculous terms Joshua

The term PostNeoDarwinism is an embarrassment for science so they just use the term Neo-Darwinism for the modern synthesis. Ernst Mayr writing in 1984 that "the term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory is wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895 as a designation of Weismann's theory." Despite his objections, publications such as Encyclopædia Britannica use this term to refer to current evolutionary theory. Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould use the term in their writings and lectures. No surprise here that Evolutionists disagree with each other. Even if they both teach at Harvard together. Of course what is current evolutionary theory today will be falsified and proven to be wrong and they will have to write a new theory tomorrow but they will still call the new new current theory Neo-Darwinsim.

 

[Loudmouth]

It would disprove my theory about the Bible. This would disprove my interpretation.

So what would disprove the Bible? Can you describe an observation in the field of any science that would disprove the Bible? Or is the Bible true no matter what we show you?

That is why Darwinism is no longer valid and we now have neoDarwinism and PostNeoDarwinism.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

Is that what they are doing with the Bible? Are they rewriting it until they get it right?

We know that Noah's flood was not a world wide flood.

You only say that now because a global flood has been disproven. Before all of the evidence came in, there were millions of Christians who believed that Noah's flood was global.

All you are doing is selectively changing your interpretation of the Bible to match the science you agree with, and then ignoring all of the science you don't like.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Care to cite the scientific research that reaches these conclusions?

I do constantly. Those that are not born again, have a reprobate mind and their main objective is to suppress the truth.

Matt 13 15 "For this people’s heart has grown callous; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.’"

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

And yes science does prove the Bible right. Genesis 1:27 states " So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them". When we look at our 23 pairs of Chromosomes we find that there are both male and female chromosomes in each and every one of us "male and female created he them".

We can actually trace the Y and X chromosome back to a single male and female. They didn't live during the same time or in the same place and there were other humans that existed at the time. This falsifies Genesis. It is not literal history. It is a myth.

 

[HitchSlap]

The truth sets us free and I find freedom to be better then bondage.

I'm not into bondage myself, buy hey, whatever floats your boat. No judgement here.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There are huge, huge, huge opportunities to disprove the Bible. Only no one has ever been able to disprove the Bible. The Bible is very exact and very precise.

Did plants exist before the sun like Genesis says? This of course is scientifically impossible. There you go, Genesis falsified.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So what would disprove the Bible?

The Bible is symbolic to be sure, not doubt about that. Still I am a literalist so all you have to do is prove the Bible is not literally true. Show that Noah was not a real person or show that Adam was not a real person. For non literalist of course this would not be an issue because it does not change anything if Adam and Noah are archtypes only and not real people. So some people are happy to take a soft approach but I still take the literal and more exacting hard approach.

Confessions of faith tend to be very strong and very exacting. They set a very high standard.

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.…

 

[joshua 1 9]

Did plants exist before the sun like Genesis says? This of course is scientifically impossible. There you go, Genesis falsified.

Now we are going back to Steve Wells skeptics Bible. I wrote a whole tread dealing with the Skeptics Bible so maybe you could ask this question in that thread. Again the Skeptics Bible is based on a reprobate mind and reprobate thinking. What some would call faulty thinking. This understanding is not based on sound logic or sound reasoning. This is the wide broad way to destruction and many find this way.

 

[Astrophile]

The Apophis Asteroid will come scarily close to Earth on Friday April 13, 2029. I use this as another marker. The Apophis asteroid travels on a 7 year circuit so in 2036 the comet will mark resurrection Sunday. As the day draws closer people will want to talk more about his. There will be people wanting to sell their books and make money off of the event.

The asteroid 99942 Apophis will certainly come interestingly close to the Earth on the evening of 13 April 2029; it will miss the Earth by 31,900 km, and will be as bright as magnitude 3.4, easily visible in binoculars or to the naked eye from a dark site.

However, on 13 April 2036, it will miss the Earth by at least 23 million kilometres and more likely by about 56 million kilometres. At this distance it will probably be 16th to 18th magnitude, and will be an object for astrophotography rather than direct telescopic observation. There is certainly no danger of a collision with the Earth on that date. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis and http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/01/04/asteroid_apophis_will_not_hit_earth_in_2036.html ). The fact that this wide miss occurs on Easter Sunday is irrelevant.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'm not into bondage myself, buy hey, whatever floats your boat. No judgement here.

Psalm 2
3 "Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!"
4 He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Bible is symbolic to be sure, not doubt about that. Still I am a literalist so all you have to do is prove the Bible is not literally true. Show that Noah was not a real person or show that Adam was not a real person.

What evidence would do that?

For non literalist of course this would not be an issue because it does not change anything if Adam and Noah are archtypes only and not real people.

So it wouldn't prove the Bible wrong?

 

[joshua 1 9]

The asteroid 99942 Apophis will certainly come interestingly close to the Earth on the evening of 13 April 2029; it will miss the Earth by 31,900 km, and will be as bright as magnitude 3.4, easily visible in binoculars or to the naked eye from a dark site.

However, on 13 April 2036, it will miss the Earth by at least 23 million kilometres and more likely by about 56 million kilometres. At this distance it will probably be 16th to 18th magnitude, and will be an object for astrophotography rather than direct telescopic observation. There is certainly no danger of a collision with the Earth on that date. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis and http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/01/04/asteroid_apophis_will_not_hit_earth_in_2036.html ). The fact that this wide miss occurs on Easter Sunday is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant but I am ONLY using this event as a marker for the 2,000 year anniversary of the church. As the day draws near lots of people will be selling lots of books and making lots of money proclaiming that this is going to be the end of the world. We went through this in the year 2,000 and we will all the more go through this in the year 2029.

 

[HitchSlap]

Psalm 2
3 "Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!"
4 He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.

Just so you know what I'm thinking when posters throw up bible verses;
I take it as an implicit admission of defeat.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Are you saying that current scientific knowledge about the age of the universe (13.8 billion years) and of the solar system (4568 million years), the deposition of fossiliferous sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor, and our common ancestry with other primates, does not conflict with the Bible in any way? If so, I am very glad to hear it.

 

[SAM ASRY]

There are huge, huge, huge opportunities to disprove the Bible. Only no one has ever been able to disprove the Bible. The Bible is very exact and very precise.

But, Muslims use the Bible as evidence to disprove Christianity.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So it wouldn't prove the Bible wrong?

If Adam and Eve were not real people this would prove the Literal Hard Interpretation of the Bible wrong. The Bible is a Testament and a Testament is a Covenant. There are lots of Covenants in the Bible. There is the Covenant that God made with all of mankind in Genesis chapter one, there is the Covenant that God made with Adam, there is the Covenant that God made with Noah and there is the Covenant that God made with Abraham. Now you want to suggest that God is making covenants with Archetypes and not real people? That is a bit to much of a stretch for me, but maybe it works for you. If the people are not real then it is a very short distance to go to say God is not real and you will end up apostate and reprobate. Still you would be left with the non literal soft interpretation. At that point anything could mean anything or whatever you want it to be. The Bible is the Bible because Jesus sets the standard. He is the Chief Cornerstone.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Now we are going back to Steve Wells skeptics Bible. I wrote a whole tread dealing with the Skeptics Bible so maybe you could ask this question in that thread.

I'm not going to go hunt down an old thread. You are capable of answering it here as it is still on topic. Did plants exist before the sun?

Again the Skeptics Bible is based on a reprobate mind and reprobate thinking. What some would call faulty thinking. This understanding is not based on sound logic or sound reasoning. This is the wide broad way to destruction and many find this way.

No, it's based on the knowledge that it is scientifically impossible to have plants without a sun. It easily falsifies Genesis. It is clearly not to be taken literally. The bible is not a science book no matter how much you wish it were.