Science PROVES the BIBLE is True

[In situ]

Moses was very educated and Science was somewhat established in his day.

Why do you spell science with a capital S?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Since your mind is obviously so closed to the truth of Christianity

My mind is closed to unfalsifiable claims and unsupported assertions.

Truth is demonstrable. Something doesn't become true, just by calling it "truth".

, one has to wonder what you hope to gain by posting on a forum like this.

Did you think I joined this forum for the purpose of becoming a christian?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would say that you are asking the wrong question. I think it should be, "If someone makes a claim that something can be backed up by science, are we able to see the evidence for such a claim and if so, are we sure we are drawing the right conclusions or are there equally feasible alternative explanations?"

Dude....

Read the thread title.

If someone claims that science PROVES the bible, then you bet that people will ask for the evidence that supposedly PROVES the bible.

As it is claimed to be science, this evidence should be objective and verifiable.
Where is it? Certainly not in this thread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That may be the majority view,

No. It's the consensus view.

but there is a significant minority of scientists who would disagree with the conclusions that have been drawn and would say that far from confirming the TOE, the available evidence leads to conclusions that actually refute it.

Dishonest people with religious agenda's and without the research to back their claims, don't count as scientists.

There is some common ground of course, so while Bible/creation-believing scientists wouldn't argue against the idea that there is an enormous amount of variability built into the genes of living creatures, enabling them to change to adapt to their environments (hence the reason for instance that until the onset of rapid intercontinental travel, the fairest skinned people lived in the higher latitudes and those that lived in the sunnier climates of the tropics had the darkest skin colouration), they would disagree with the notion that one type of creature, e.g., dinosaurs, would eventually change into another, e.g., birds.

These people's ignorance (or dishonesty) regarding genetics and distribution of species, is not an argument against the established sciences of biology.

Not everything can be explained by science of course (the resurrection of Jesus or His walking on water to name just two of God's miracles, let alone the creation of the universe)

Or Jupiter throwing lighnting bolts or Thor producing thunder by smashing his hammer or Poseidon ruling the tides...

, so some things have to be taken on faith,

aka "without evidence"

Why would you do that?

circumstantial evidence, etc.

What circumstantial evidence?

Those that reject the possibility of God creating everything "very good" either have to have an alternative faith to fill the gaps in our knowledge

Why? What's wrong with "i don't know" when we don't know? Why must we fill the gap with some unfalsifiable nonsense?

ps: I lol'ed at the blatant argument-from-the-gaps

(Atheism)

Atheism makes no claims. Atheism is the unbelief of an unsupported claim.

or somehow marry the idea of God using evolution, a cruel and wasteful process based on the survival of the fittest/destruction of the weakest, in order to... (I can't quite fathom out what God might have had in mind if I were to believe that that is what He has actually done).

I find it hilarious to see fundamentalists make such arguments....

Fundi's don't seem to have any problems when god issues commandmends that we might find morally objectionable. Then it's all "god is mysterious" and "goodness itself" and "if god says it, it is so, even when we don't understand it".


But when it comes to evolution, "we not understanding" why god would use such a process, it suddenly changes into "therefor, he didn't use such a process".

Consistency... not something you'll find in fundi argumentation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Everyone has to have a certain amount of faith as not everything can be proved. You can't prove that someone loves you, but you can make assumptions based on their actions (which can turn out to be totally wrong in the end).

So.... could your belief in god turn out to be totally wrong?

If your answer is "yes", my question is: how could you find out?

You can't prove that something happened in the past

Are you certain?

Someone walked here:

Something burned here:

A plane crashed here:

See? Clearly, your claim about not being able to prove "past events", is simply wrong.

, but you can draw reasonable conclusions based on documentary evidence, other physical evidence, etc.

Yes. And your conclusion's accuracy will varry in degree from very unlikely to as-good-as certain. And the likelyness of your conclusion will be directly related to the quality and amount of evidence.

So is Christianity true or not?

Considering the evidence and quality thereof, it's not very likely. It's, instead, very very unlikely.

Many clever people have studied the evidence and formed conclusions that it is indeed true.

Many other clever people did the same and concluded otherwise.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So If you want to reject our God and you want to mock and belittle us, then why should we have any compassion for you?

Because you should treat your enemies with love and compassion?
Because you should turn the other cheeck?
Because you should treat others, the way you wish to be treated?

no?

 

[Born Again2004]

You stating three times I cannot, or will not, understand, yet you seams to claim there is some knowledge in the form of evidence that make rational sense but it wont make sense to an unbeliever, this becasue the Bible says this is the case. Is that correctly understood?

That is right. As a believer, I know I have Jesus in me and as a unbeliever, you can't have Jesus in you.....God willing, if you come to this point in your life and with Jesus in you, this is the knowledge and evidence you will have!
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
I am a believer and because of that I believe and understand the above verse, you can't. Maybe you are here for a reason....give God a chance and see what he can do through you. God Bless

 

[Blondepudding]

This is, of course, a quote mine which is absurd in the highest possible degree for anyone who actually have read Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species because those who actually cares about being truthful will know how Darwin then goes on and actually explain how the eye could have been been formed by natural selection and then conclude it is not as absurd as it first might have been thought.

Here is another quote mine from Origin of Species: "Natural selection cannot possible produce any modifications in any one species" which continues "exclusively for the good of another species".

Someone who takes a round about road to call me a liar is lower than the slime old Dar imagined we came from. In their case he was probably right though. So there is that.

 

[florida2]

Someone who takes a round about road to call me a liar is lower than the slime old Dar imagined we came from. In their case he was probably right though. So there is that.

Someone pointing out that you posted a quote-mine does not give you the right to call them a liar and lower than slime. He quite correctly pointed out that when you actually read the quote you posted in context it does not mean what you want it to mean.

I believe that you posted the quote in good faith as it was just something that you had copied rather than having gone out and looked it up yourself. Be careful, there are plenty of creationists out there who quote-mine deliberately and only end up making themselves look bad.

 

[In situ]

I'm not a science chick so thank you for that. I've just heard that macroevolution proves there is no so called missing link. Therefore Darwin was in error.

What you write here does not make any sense to me. Are you able to explain in more detail what the claim was?

I Being Ignostic this wasn't through a religious source either but one a year ago or so that was on a cable education channel in my area.
Thanks again.

I never encounter any denial of the theory of evolution that has been non-religious. Are you able to recall the name of the show you saw?

 

[In situ]

I am here to learn

Yet, you are telling everyone who disagrees with you how wrong they are, how inept their thinking is and how right you are all the time. You are not paying attention to what other says, to me it feels like you have a monolog with yourself.

You need to start to pay attention to what other says and stop filtering everything other says through you preconception of what people are and what they think and believe, when you do that then you will be able to hear what others has to say. You learn by listening and admitting when being wrong, not by talking and inisting in being right.

 

[In situ]

Someone who takes a round about road to call me a liar is lower than the slime old Dar imagined we came from. In their case he was probably right though. So there is that.

I beg your pardon? I did not call you a liar, nor was that my intention. I believe you posted it in good faith. My intention was to bring your attention to that this particular quote is taken out of context, it is a well known misrepresentation of Darwin's view which still circulates because creationist insists in continue use it despite its been pointed out many time it is an incorrect representation of Darwin's view on the matter.

 

[In situ]

So If you want to reject our God and you want to mock and belittle us, then why should we have any compassion for you?

Because the proclaimed authority, the Bible, tells you to do that?

 

[In situ]

I would say that you are asking the wrong question. I think it should be, "If someone makes a claim that something can be backed up by science, are we able to see the evidence for such a claim and if so, are we sure we are drawing the right conclusions or are there equally feasible alternative explanations?"

You do realize that scientific evidence is an observation made by researchers and then published in peer reviewed journals to be scrutinized by the rest of the research community? Such as the observation of angles, demons, burning talking bushes, talking snakes and wooden sticks turned into snakes.

In which scientific peer reviewed journal can we read about these evidence?

If it had been observed, you can bet on that it would had been published in Science or Nature as a cover edition: "Scientist proves the Bible true!", yet no such cover edition have been heard of. So were is the claimed scientific evidence that proves the Bible to be true - if not only in Joshua's mind?

 

[In situ]

but there is a significant minority of scientists who would disagree with the conclusions that have been drawn and would say that far from confirming the TOE,

I would not say "significant", and would not had used that word at all, since it is tend to be misleading. There are a few, but then again, in any scientific research field you will find many ideas. The question is if these alternative ideas holds water or not, and none of alternative to the theory of evolution does. The theory explains what needs to be explained (which is the diversity and the distribution of life), other theories does not even come close to explain all the facts.

In any case, do you have any particular scientist(s) in mind you feel to name?

the available evidence leads to conclusions that actually refute it.

As far as I know all known facts support, and is explained, by the theory of evolution. If you think this is not the case then please point to some facts that refute it.

they would disagree with the notion that one type of creature, e.g., dinosaurs, would eventually change into another, e.g., birds.

Birds are not some "other kind" of creature which "evolved" from dinosaurs. All observational facts tells us that is impossible and the theory of evolution actually forbids such things to happen. Dinosaurs is a wide group of animals, just like mammals. Birds are included in dinosaurs because birds are dinosaurs, have always been dinosaurs and will always continue be dinosaurs. Just like rabbits and whales are mammals, always will be and continue to be mammals. Please read my post When did birds turn into dinosaurs? for a more extensive explanation why birds are dinosaurs.

What is a "bird" any way? If you tell me what traits you think a "bird" has then I can probably tell you the same is true for a dinosaur as well because there are very few traits a bird has which a dinosaur do not have as well - including behaviour.

evolution, a cruel and wasteful process based on the survival of the fittest/destruction of the weakest

There is at least five different definition of fittness used by biologist, none of them as you just describe it. Fitness is not about survival but about reproducing. To be "fit" means to be able to raise offspring which in turn produces more offsprings, it has nothing to do with who is strongest or weakest. In fact there are plenty of examples of phenotypes which are "weaker" than other phenotypes but still is more fit than the "stronger" phenotypes.

If you look at nature with the view that things are either bad or god then you cannot understand biology properly. What is good in one situation might be bad in another and the other way around. Organisms interact with the environment and fitness is how well you succeed to reproduce in the enviroment you exists. For instance a fish on land is not very fit at all, since it will die without reproducing...

 

[In situ]

No real scientist disagrees with ToE.

I have to disagree with this, since I can mention a few that actually does. But then again, when they disagree they do not speak as scientist but colored by their religious beliefs.

 

[In situ]

I already have lots and lots and lots of times. There is overwhelming evidence to show that the Bible is true. I do not have to show you it is obvious for everyone to see.

Are you saying the "overwhelming evidence" is there is no evidence that refutes the Bible?

 

[In situ]

Are you saying quotes of personal opinions about the big questions is scientific evidence that the Bible is proven true by science?

 

[In situ]

The Bible makes this very clear that "man" spoke the Words of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God.

Your claim wash that science has proven the Bible to be true. You cannot then use claims in the Bible as evidence to prove what the Bibel claims is true. The claims made in the Bible is not truths nor evidence, but claims which, accoring to yourself, can be proven to be true by science.

Were are these scientific evidence? So far you have produced none and avoiding mention them but keep insisting that you have mention them. This make me suspect that you do not have any scientific evidence at all and just assert things out of thin air.

 

[In situ]

This shows that leading men of science believe that the Laws of Science originated with God.

And in what respect is personal opinions and beliefs scientific evidence?