Abe Relent's To The Bible Falsifiable Fact Challenge

TempestTossed · July 1, 2007

The challenge (from a Christian forum member) is this:

"I offered you the challenge to find some falsifiable fact of the Bible in error. Surely you are capable of such an easy feat. It is only a compilation of authors written over thousands of year. Surely there is some error. All those authors over all that time, they could not possibly write so many books and be in complete and accurate agreement."

So I am challenged to find some falsifiable fact of the Bible in error. I ask: What if the Bible does not contain any falsifiable statements, right or wrong? I lose. Not only can I not find a falsifiable statement that is in error--neither can I find any falsifiable statements! There are plenty of statements in the Bible that I can personally judge to be right, and there are plenty that I can personally judge to be wrong. When I find something right, a person who is committed to the faith that the Bible is right will say, "Yep, another indication that the Bible is scientifically, scholarly and logically magnificent." But if I find something that I personally judge to be wrong, then the same person will say, "But that doesn't mean the same thing you think it means. It was meant to be taken metaphorically," or, "you took it out of context," or, "this Hebrew word has another meaning that was mistranslated because of the lack of vowels in the Hebrew language," or, "it is right for God to do this thing but not right for humans," or, "It isn't God talking, it is a human talking," etc. There is a Swiss Army knife of handy defenses that any apologist can use to fend off accusations of error in the book that absolutely must be correct. And, at the same time, none of those excuses are used when the Bible is cited as scientifically accurate. Therefore, how can I possibly find a falsifiable fact in the Bible?

Let me give you an example. The Bible seems to tell me that the sky is made of hard material, but the Bible tells the Christian apologist no such thing.

Job 37:18 (NIV) says, "Can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?"

In the ancient middle east, it was common to think that the sky was made of hard material. Otherwise, what would keep the clouds, sun, moon, and stars from falling to Earth? A solid sky seems to be the scholarly translation because of the historical context.

And Proverbs 8:28 (NAS) confirms it: "When He made firm the skies above..." The NIV translation has, "when he established the clouds above..." perhaps because a direct translation of the Hebrew word, "amats"--"to be strong, alert, courageous, brave, stout, bold, solid, hard" (Strong's), is too embarrassing.

And again the solid sky translation seems to be corroborated by the second day of creation in Genesis 1 (NIV):

"6 And God said, 'Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.' 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day."

Another translation to avoid embarrassment. The word, "expanse," is translated as, "firmament," in the New King James. And, according to Strong's, it is Raqiya, meaning, "extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament." God used the second day to create the solid sky dome firmament to separate the waters above from the waters below. I figure God wouldn't need a whole day to create empty space, which is the popular translation of Christian apologists.

Heck, maybe all of these defenses are correct. Maybe God wrote the Bible himself and all of these defenses are suitable. And what these defenses mean is that, right or wrong, no part of the Bible can be falsified. The apologist defenses make it too vague, too flexible in meaning. I can't fight that kind of defense. I fail.

**Dave** · July 1, 2007

Tempest,

You inadvertently demonstrated why evolutionists cannot "prove" their hypothesis that all living things "evolved" from ... from ... something. The examples you gave in your previous post about the Bible are indeed unprovable in the operational physical science sense, as is your hypothesis of evolution.

We believe, however, that creation was done the way that God said, as you would too if you were infused with the Holy Spirit and could understand the Bible from a faith point of view rather than from the point of view of just being a work of fiction. Which is, by the way, how you believe that materialistic naturalism is the way that things happened.

That being said, I do believe it is possible to find falsifiable things in the Bible and determine if it was or wasn't the way the Bible stated.

The original question, acording to you, was:

"I offered you the challenge to find some falsifiable fact of the Bible in error."

My understanding is that nothing in the Bible that could be examined under current historical, scientific and technological conditions has been proven to be false. There are many historical characters, historical settings, foods, tools, battle strategies, etc., that just a couple of centuries ago, or even more recent, were thought to have been fictional in the Bible. Many of these have since been discovered, many of them using the Bible as a first reference to point them to the discovery.

So, I think the challenge reads like: Find something in the Bible that has been established as a fact and find that the establishment of fact is in error. Location of ancient, previously undiscovered cities, historical figures, plants or animals that could not have existed in Biblical times, etc.

As a corollary exercise, then let us see if we can find things established about the "fact" of evolution that have been supposedly indisputably proven, and but that the proof was in error.

I think you know this is a loaded challenge. But, let's see what happens.

Dave

TempestTossed · July 1, 2007

Tempest,

You inadvertently demonstrated why evolutionists cannot "prove" their hypothesis that all living things "evolved" from ... from ... something. The examples you gave in your previous post about the Bible are indeed unprovable in the operational physical science sense, as is your hypothesis of evolution.

We believe, however, that creation was done the way that God said, as you would too if you were infused with the Holy Spirit and could understand the Bible from a faith point of view rather than from the point of view of just being a work of fiction. Which is, by the way, how you believe that materialistic naturalism is the way that things happened.

That being said, I do believe it is possible to find falsifiable things in the Bible and determine if it was or wasn't the way the Bible stated.

The original question, acording to you, was:

"I offered you the challenge to find some falsifiable fact of the Bible in error."

My understanding is that nothing in the Bible that could be examined under current historical, scientific and technological conditions has been proven to be false. There are many historical characters, historical settings, foods, tools, battle strategies, etc., that just a couple of centuries ago, or even more recent, were thought to have been fictional in the Bible. Many of these have since been discovered, many of them using the Bible as a first reference to point them to the discovery.

So, I think the challenge reads like: Find something in the Bible that has been established as a fact and find that the establishment of fact is in error. Location of ancient, previously undiscovered cities, historical figures, plants or animals that could not have existed in Biblical times, etc.

As a corollary exercise, then let us see if we can find things established about the "fact" of evolution that have been supposedly indisputably proven, and but that the proof was in error.

I think you know this is a loaded challenge. But, let's see what happens.

Dave

14271[/snapback]

"You inadvertently demonstrated why evolutionists cannot "prove" their hypothesis that all living things "evolved" from ... from ... something. The examples you gave in your previous post about the Bible are indeed unprovable in the operational physical science sense, as is your hypothesis of evolution."

I will gladly give you examples of how evolution from common descent can be falsified. I wrote a thread in the Creation vs. Evolution forum titled, "The Superclass Of Four Limbs." The proposition that tetrapods descended from a common ancestor can be falsified by any tetrapod (amphibian/reptile/mammal/bird) that does not have four limbs or show the remnants of its four-limbed ancestry. If you would like to respond to that claim, do so in that thread, not here.

"My understanding is that nothing in the Bible that could be examined under current historical, scientific and technological conditions has been proven to be false. There are many historical characters, historical settings, foods, tools, battle strategies, etc., that just a couple of centuries ago, or even more recent, were thought to have been fictional in the Bible. Many of these have since been discovered, many of them using the Bible as a first reference to point them to the discovery.

"So, I think the challenge reads like: Find something in the Bible that has been established as a fact and find that the establishment of fact is in error. Location of ancient, previously undiscovered cities, historical figures, plants or animals that could not have existed in Biblical times, etc."

I can't pin down exactly what your challenge is. I already realize that there are some things in the Bible that are true, and current science and scholarship has established them as fact. And there are some claims in the TV series Star Trek that are established as fact. Proving wrong the well-established facts found in Star Trek is a very difficult and unnecessary way to prove Star Trek fiction. Wouldn't it be better to point out the absurdities of Star Trek that clearly violate the laws of physics or something like that? Maybe I misunderstood what you are saying.

**Dave** · July 2, 2007

Tempest,

Since I'm picking up on your reply to someone else's challenge I might be speaking out of turn, but in my mind I'm seeing it like this:

The challenge was offered to anyone who wanted to pick a falsifiable fact from the Bible and prove it was in error.

Pick an obvious fact then -- like the city of Jerusalem as described in the Bible exists as described in the Bible. That's falsifiable. You could look in the location as described many, many times in the Bible -- from Genesis 22 onward -- and see if it is there. If all you find is bare dirt for miles around, and even dig down and find no artifacts, then you'd conclude that Jerusalem did not exist. If you find a city with a rich ancient history, then you know it did.

See? Like that.

My understanding is that no new historical, scientific, or archeological finding in the Middle East has contradicted or disproven anything in the Bible. Quite the contrary.

It's true that there are many discoveries yet to be made. Noah's ark, for one big one. But, with so many new discoveries coming out in support of the historical accuracy of the Bible, wouldn't one begin to believe that there could indeed be many more discoveries to come? Would anyone, at this point, be at all surprised when the glaciers melt enough on top of Mount Ararat (or wherever) and Noah's Ark comes into view?

Now, if I've been told once by an evolutionist I've been told a thousand times that evolution is not about proof -- it's about the best explanation for the evidence, they say. But, you know what? It isn't. It's about the best story that can be concocted for man's existence that completely leaves out the role that God played -- in which case that story falls far short of the truth.

So, we have the unimpeachable historical accuracy of the Bible, compared to the suppositions, guesses, what-ifs, just-sos, could-bes and lack of proof of the story of evolution.

We who understand the factual, provable accuracy of the Bible are interested in knowing if the evolution apologists have one solid, undeniable, provable fact of molecule to man evolution to stand on.

It's just my interpretation, but I believe that's where the original poster who you quoted from was headed.

Dave

TempestTossed · July 2, 2007

Tempest,

Since I'm picking up on your reply to someone else's challenge I might be speaking out of turn, but in my mind I'm seeing it like this:

The challenge was offered to anyone who wanted to pick a falsifiable fact from the Bible and prove it was in error.

Pick an obvious fact then -- like the city of Jerusalem as described in the Bible exists as described in the Bible. That's falsifiable. You could look in the location as described many, many times in the Bible -- from Genesis 22 onward -- and see if it is there. If all you find is bare dirt for miles around, and even dig down and find no artifacts, then you'd conclude that Jerusalem did not exist. If you find a city with a rich ancient history, then you know it did.

See? Like that.

My understanding is that no new historical, scientific, or archeological finding in the Middle East has contradicted or disproven anything in the Bible. Quite the contrary.

It's true that there are many discoveries yet to be made. Noah's ark, for one big one. But, with so many new discoveries coming out in support of the historical accuracy of the Bible, wouldn't one begin to believe that there could indeed be many more discoveries to come? Would anyone, at this point, be at all surprised when the glaciers melt enough on top of Mount Ararat (or wherever) and Noah's Ark comes into view?

Now, if I've been told once by an evolutionist I've been told a thousand times that evolution is not about proof -- it's about the best explanation for the evidence, they say. But, you know what? It isn't. It's about the best story that can be concocted for man's existence that completely leaves out the role that God played -- in which case that story falls far short of the truth.

So, we have the unimpeachable historical accuracy of the Bible, compared to the suppositions, guesses, what-ifs, just-sos, could-bes and lack of proof of the story of evolution.

We who understand the factual, provable accuracy of the Bible are interested in knowing if the evolution apologists have one solid, undeniable, provable fact of molecule to man evolution to stand on.

It's just my interpretation, but I believe that's where the original poster who you quoted from was headed.

Dave

14282[/snapback]

I would be very highly surprised to find Noah's Ark on top of any mountain. It would be kinda like catching Tinkerbell in a jar, as opposed to finding the city of London (a place in the Peter Pan story). So do you think it is a good idea to demand that the well-established facts contained within the Bible or Star Trek need to be discounted before the whole story can be discounted? Are you going to ask me to prove wrong those laws of physics that Star Trek follows some of the time? I mean, what about the clear absurdities? What about traveling backward in time? Any fictional story is going to have a selection of very well-established facts. The settings of the Bible are well-known places and cultures of the middle east, not Hobbiton or Mordor, or else very few people would be led to believe them. You are asking me to disprove the parts of the Bible that are already proved, without paying attention to the absurdities, contradictions, failed prophecies, and failed science. Such a standard certainly doesn't solve the problem of falsifiability. It actually seems to magnify the problem. The Bible is not falsifiable to modern Christians. I asked you to confirm what I thought you were saying because it seems self-evidently a bad standard. Heck, maybe I still misunderstand. I certainly don't think that is what lwj2op2 meant to say.

**Dave** · July 2, 2007

You are asking me to disprove the parts of the Bible that are already proved, ...

14283[/snapback]

It wasn't me that postulated the original question. I'm just trying to get an answer.

Yes, disprove parts of the Bible that are already proved. That's what the orginal question was, if I'm not mistaken. As you quoted the original questioner: " ...find some falsifiable fact of the Bible in error.'

... without paying attention to the absurdities, contradictions, failed prophecies, and failed science.

That's what we are asking. Let us know where they are. But, you must know this is ground that has been gone over many, many times. The absurdities are absurdities only if you don't care to understand the context in which each book of the Bible was inspired and written. There are no contradictions, only man's fallible misunderstandings. There are no failed prophecies, only prophecies that haven't been completed yet. Failed science? Hit me with one. Let's see about that.

So do you think it is a good idea to demand that the well-established facts contained within the Bible ... need to be discounted before the whole story can be discounted?

I think it's safe to say that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of verifiable historical facts in the Bible. I think the point I and others wish to make is we have an inspired record of how and when God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. That inspired record has been studied and verified. Attempts have been made to refute many of the historical facts, and the end result oftentimes is that the investigator becomes a believer.

But let's look at it hypothetically. Let's say that out of 1,000 facts in the Bible that are provably true, there might be one or two that are subsequently proven false. Then, out of 1,000 conjectures about molecule to man evolution, there is not one that is provably true. You tell me which has the most credibility. I mean, really.

The original poster asked the question because he knew nobody could answer it. Then, I believe his next question would have been to ask the same thing but apply it to the evolution hypothesis.

So, you have two choices: You can try to disprove a fact of the Bible that is currently accepted truth, and/or you can toss up a proven fact of evolution for us to attempt to disprove. But, make sure it is a fact, and not a "we think," or "probably happened," or "evidence points to." Like that.

Dave

TempestTossed · July 2, 2007

It wasn't me that postulated the original question. I'm just trying to get an answer.

Yes, disprove parts of the Bible that are already proved. That's what the orginal question was, if I'm not mistaken.

As you quoted the original questioner: " ...find some falsifiable fact of the Bible in error.'

That's what we are asking. Let us know where they are. But, you must know this is ground that has been gone over many, many times. The absurdities are absurdities only if you don't care to understand the context in which each book of the Bible was inspired and written. There are no contradictions, only man's fallible misunderstandings. There are no failed prophecies, only prophecies that haven't been completed yet. Failed science? Hit me with one. Let's see about that.

I think it's safe to say that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of verifiable historical facts in the Bible. I think the point I and others wish to make is we have an inspired record of how and when God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. That inspired record has been studied and verified. Attempts have been made to refute many of the historical facts, and the end result oftentimes is that the investigator becomes a believer.

But let's look at it hypothetically. Let's say that out of 1,000 facts in the Bible that are provably true, there might be one or two that are subsequently proven false. Then, out of 1,000 conjectures about molecule to man evolution, there is not one that is provably true. You tell me which has the most credibility. I mean, really.

The original poster asked the question because he knew nobody could answer it. Then, I believe his next question would have been to ask the same thing but apply it to the evolution hypothesis.

So, you have two choices: You can try to disprove a fact of the Bible that is currently accepted truth, and/or you can toss up a proven fact of evolution for us to attempt to disprove. But, make sure it is a fact, and not a "we think," or "probably happened," or "evidence points to." Like that.

Dave

14285[/snapback]

I guess your standard is a little different from what you interpret lwj2op2 to have said. I interpret it a little different. He said, "fact of the Bible," but I just take that to mean any statement of the Bible, all of which he determines to be facts, he being a fundamentalist Christian.

"That's what we are asking. Let us know where they are. But, you must know this is ground that has been gone over many, many times. The absurdities are absurdities only if you don't care to understand the context in which each book of the Bible was inspired and written. There are no contradictions, only man's fallible misunderstandings. There are no failed prophecies, only prophecies that haven't been completed yet. Failed science? Hit me with one. Let's see about that."

This is what the problem of falsifiability is all about. As I said in the OP, I can't meet the challenge, because there is no conceivable verse of the Bible that can be falsified. You want failed science in the Bible? Well, I have my own idea of failed science, and I see it in the solid sky dome of Job 37:18, Proverbs 8:28, and Genesis 1:6-8. And of course Christian apologists have their own various ad hoc defenses against the interpretation of these verses. I have seen those defenses already--I know you have your own set of defenses for each verse, and those defenses are impenetrable in the minds of religious adherents, even if they lack proper evidence or consistency. This dilemma would apply even for those externally established facts of the Bible that were once previously believed by Christians and non-Christians alike. If any such fact is demonstrated wrong, then the selection of apologist defenses is brought out again, the same as any other Biblical problem. So I can't meet the challenge. I completely fail. I am crucified. My corpse is strewn asunder over the burning debris. Vultures feast on my entrails.

**Dave** · July 2, 2007

Tempest,

I can appreciate and understand your frustration. It's how we view evolutionistic fundamentalists. No matter how logically and sensibly we point out evolutionistic fallacies they always come up with a work-around to sidestep admitting they are wrong.

But, look at it this way. What is the foundation for each belief?

On the one hand, we have the inspired word of God, independently verified going back thousands of years for truth and accuracy to the nth degree. Prophecies in this foundational book have been fulfilled against astronomically huge odds. Every single new scientific, historic, and archeological discovery makes the foundation even stronger. No new discovery ever undermines this foundation.

Then, on the other hand we have a belief which has a foundation based only on the claim that it has no foundation in Biblical truth at all. There is no independently verifiable proof. There is no being subjected to the scientific method. Every new evolutionistic "discovery" is claimed to bolster the evolutionistic hypothesis, but that only works because of the evolutionistic assumptions that support the discovery in the first place. It's circular reasoning at its best.

So, if you want to do something about your frustration, put aside your naturalistic, materialistic-only worldview and really take a serious look at the belief that has the solid foundation. There are many nice folks here who can help you with that.

Dave

TempestTossed · July 3, 2007

Tempest,

I can appreciate and understand your frustration. It's how we view evolutionistic fundamentalists. No matter how logically and sensibly we point out evolutionistic fallacies they always come up with a work-around to sidestep admitting they are wrong.

But, look at it this way. What is the foundation for each belief?

On the one hand, we have the inspired word of God, independently verified going back thousands of years for truth and accuracy to the nth degree. Prophecies in this foundational book have been fulfilled against astronomically huge odds. Every single new scientific, historic, and archeological discovery makes the foundation even stronger. No new discovery ever undermines this foundation.

Then, on the other hand we have a belief which has a foundation based only on the claim that it has no foundation in Biblical truth at all. There is no independently verifiable proof. There is no being subjected to the scientific method. Every new evolutionistic "discovery" is claimed to bolster the evolutionistic hypothesis, but that only works because of the evolutionistic assumptions that support the discovery in the first place. It's circular reasoning at its best.

So, if you want to do something about your frustration, put aside your naturalistic, materialistic-only worldview and really take a serious look at the belief that has the solid foundation. There are many nice folks here who can help you with that.

Dave

14296[/snapback]

I like the way you argue, and you have some great points. You asked me what is the foundation for each belief. You answered the question as it applies to Christian/Islamic creationists. And you answered the question for evolutionists only for what their foundation is NOT, and you are generally correct. The foundation for any sound scientific theory is observation, and this includes the theory of evolution. When Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, he did not make his arguments using the absolute authority of the gods, like a Christian or an Islamic adherent would do. He cited only the things he observed--the adaptations of bird beaks, the vestiges of past organs, the objective nested taxonomy, the geographic distribution clustered by taxonomy, etc. It is the same as any other scientific theory. When Newton proposed his laws of motion, neither did he cite the Holy Scriptures as the source of his inspiration, though he was certainly a great Christian theologian as he was a scientist.

My OP was meant to show that the Bible is not falsifiable by the standards that Christians commonly accept. The modern interpretations and apologist defenses leave it too mysteriously vague for any disproof of any part of it. This means that claims of confirmations of Biblical predictions must be critically examined in light of the imposed ambiguity. Using the ambiguity of meaning, any passage can be interpreted to mean something a reader prefers it to mean. If it is not falsifiable because of the ambiguity, then chances are that neither is it confirmable. There may be exceptions with passages that are exceptionally specific and clear in meaning, and they should be examined case by case.

Scientific theories contrast with popular religious doctrines. Scientific theories can be falsified, and the theory of evolution is one of them. There are thousands of potential problems that could have dealt the theory of evolution a crippling blow. There is an online publication titled, "29+ Evidences of Macroevolution," that has a "Potential Falsification" section for every "Prediction." Let me give you examples:

"...we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material."

"It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings."

"Any finding of a striking half-mammal, half-bird intermediate would be highly inconsistent with common descent."

"...we should never find vestigial nipples or a vestigial incus bone in any amphibians, birds, or reptiles. No mammals should be found with vestigial feathers. No primates should ever be found with vestigial horns or degenerate wings hidden underneath the skin of the back. We should never find any arthropods with vestigial backbones."

"...we never expect to find bird-like beaks in eutherian mammal embryos (eutherians are placental mammals such as humans, cows, dogs, or rabbits)."

"...we should never find elephants on distant Pacific islands, even though they would survive well there. Similarly, we predict that we should not find amphibians on remote islands, or indigenous Cacti on Australia."

"...we predict that we should never find birds with both wings and arms, or mollusks harboring chloroplasts, even though these structures could be quite useful for these organisms."

"We would not expect newly discovered species of dolphins, whales, penguins, or any close mammalian relatives to have gills (a possible analogy with fish), since their immediate ancestors lacked gills or gill-like structures from which they could be derived."

"A strong positive falsification would be the discovery of a mammal without crossed gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts, or a reptile or mammal without blindspots in its eyes, etc."

That is only a sampling from a third of the total items given by the author. The failure of any of those predictions would be a blow to the theory of evolution. Creationism would coast through the failed predictions and claim victory. Perhaps, you think these are predictions made after we already have plentiful knowledge of the natural world (that I think is the most common criticism), even though we find new species all of the time. And the retrospective potential falsifications still stand in stark contrast to the potential falsifications of creationists, retrospective or otherwise--

--creationists don't have them. They don't even pretend to have them. They generally can't even imagine themselves being wrong. The truth that God created the world according to the Bible is a foundational building block to their entire faith, and without that important block, they think the whole system is likely to collapse. As far as I know, they don't want to give potential falsifications, because their faith is always right regardless of the way things may seem. If you don't believe me, then read the closing line of the "Statement of Faith" of Answers in Genesis, the largest creationist organization in the world:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

This explicitly negates any and all potential falsifications for their interpretation of the Bible. They strike down the evidence against them before they even see it. I could hardly believe it when I saw it. If I were in the future to openly tell people that my way of thinking can't be changed by any possible empirical evidence, I doubt that I would recognize who I am today.

I won't expect you to reply to all of this. Just write whatever comes to mind, like I did.

trilobyte · July 3, 2007

I think you should have done a little bit of looking into the verse prior to presenting your simplistic uninformed view.

JOB 37:18 can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

The term "hard" or "strong" relates to "firm"...whence the word firmament. (Gen 1:6 and Isaiah 44:24)

Now the mirror part refers to the image of the bright smiling sky. At that time glass wasn't used to make mirrors...but then again you already knew that....so bronze was the logical choice for this poetic discription.

We also know that the firmament looks smooth and polished (bronze mirror like) and with out the least flaw or crack.

TempestTossed · July 3, 2007

I think you should have done a little bit of looking into the verse prior to presenting your simplistic uninformed view.

JOB 37:18 can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

The term "hard" or "strong" relates to "firm"...whence the word firmament. (Gen 1:6 and Isaiah 44:24)

Now the mirror part refers to the image of the bright smiling sky. At that time glass wasn't used to make mirrors...but then again you already knew that....so bronze was the logical choice for this poetic discription.

We also know that the firmament looks smooth and polished (bronze mirror like) and with out the least flaw or crack.

14309[/snapback]

OK, I can't possibly dispute that. Your defense is mighty, and it leaves no hope for damage. You win, I lose.

**Dave** · July 3, 2007

Tempest,

I'm going to say something that you are absolutely not going to like. AIG's statement of faith is totally spot on, especially the last statement that you quoted.

Personally, I take a dim view of Christian scientists who compromise their faith by trying to incorporate godless, worldly naturalistic thinking into their version of evolution. I've always held AIG in the very highest regard for their integrity in holding on to God's word.

Tempest, you need to know that any belief, whether it is scientific, religious or moral that goes specifically against God's word is not of God, and hence not from God, and hence it must be from the god of this world. Know what I mean?

In its plainest form we know that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and that anybody who says otherwise is wrong. Period.

Now, I leave it up to those with more scientific experience and desire to argue it than me to debate the ins and outs of what happened in scientific history. But in the plainest, most basic sense, if a scientific "fact" directly contradicts the Bible, then the scientists need to go back to the labs and come up with a new fact.

I've browsed through a great deal of the TalkOrigins website. All of the arguments there have one thing in common -- that all evolutionistic study proceeds from presuppostion that evolution is a fact. It's really a horribly dishonest, circular and unscientific way to do science when you think about it.

Here's how your "predictions" from evolution came to be: They worked backwards from the present operational, observable science, mostly observing change within species, or in a broad sense "kinds." Then they used the evolutionistic presupposition of uniformitism, took the huge untestable, unprovable leap to a molecule to man presupposition from historical science, then made those "predictions" with perfect hindsight that ... surprise ... fit their model perfectly. No offense, but even my 10-year-old daughter sees past that shameful excuse for science.

I think that's why the original questioner was on the right track. Get it established that the Bible, is, in fact, an accurate book of history and science. So far, there doesn't seem to be any disputing that.

Then, apply that to the hypothesis of evolution. How far back can we go in scientific history finding observable, provable scientific facts about evolution? At what point would we have to cry uncle and admit that it's just a best (but wrong) guess?

And, if you are quite honest you'll do something that no other evolutionist I've ever known will do, and that's go back to the beginning. Evolutionists hate talking about the beginning. You know why? Because it will always come down to facing the hard, cold reality (to them) that God did it. They won't go there. Believe me, we've tried on this board many times.

I don't know where to go from here. What do you suggest?

Dave

TempestTossed · July 3, 2007

Dave, I am giving you the last word. I have nothing more to say. Cheers!

ikester7579 · July 3, 2007

Dave, I am giving you the last word. I have nothing more to say. Cheers!

14325[/snapback]

With all due respect, is what everyone looking for is to win? Winning a debate is not finding truth. Conceding because you are in area you are not informed on, is not learning. Here is a chance to ask questions and get answers. No body here needs to posteur if someone wants to learn. Be nice.

Learning does not mean you have to agree with what you learn. That's how a free thinker works. He looks, he ponders, he learns. But he is never obligated to agree. Even God teaches free choice. That is why salvation is called a gift. You can receive it, or not.

So if you want, in this thread, you can ask questions with no obligation to debate. And we will answer them as best we can (not all questions have answers). This way everybody learns something, and the thread does not stop here.

TempestTossed · July 3, 2007

With all due respect, is what everyone looking for is to win? Winning a debate is not finding truth. Conceding because you are in area you are not informed on, is not learning. Here is a chance to ask questions and get answers. No body here needs to posteur if someone wants to learn. Be nice.

Learning does not mean you have to agree with what you learn. That's how a free thinker works. He looks, he ponders, he learns. But he is never obligated to agree. Even God teaches free choice. That is why salvation is called a gift. You can receive it, or not.

So if you want, in this thread, you can ask questions with no obligation to debate. And we will answer them as best we can (not all questions have answers). This way everybody learns something, and the thread does not stop here.

14327[/snapback]

Actually, I am reasonably informed on the subject matter. There is something I have learned over the years I have spent debating this stuff. It goes much better if the willingness to learn is mutual. Most of the time, it is hard to tell. Those times I get a 100% confirmation of, "No, there is nothing you can show me that can possibly change my mind," then I have too little to gain by continuing. I have not much to learn from such people because I have talked to them and learned from them all I can. I grew up with them. They are homogeneous in their way of thinking with others in their group, and it is hard to learn something from someone who refuses to learn himself or herself and doesn't have that much in the information pool to share.

**Dave** · July 3, 2007

Tempest,

I admit that no debate is going to come even close to causing me to lose my faith. So, in effect, you are right to state that "there is nothing you can show me that will cause me to change my mind."

However, as Ikester pointed out, there is more to the debate here than just "winning." I've enjoyed discussing this with you, and I believe there is ground for some future fruitful discussion.

Personally, I was hoping you'd give us some fact of evolution equally provable as any of a number of facts of the Bible that are proven so we can compare which has the strongest foundation for actual truth. That's more or less the point of this thread. Or, we can move on to a different thread for a different kind of discussion.

OK?

Dave

TempestTossed · July 3, 2007

Tempest,

I admit that no debate is going to come even close to causing me to lose my faith. So, in effect, you are right to state that "there is nothing you can show me that will cause me to change my mind."

However, as Ikester pointed out, there is more to the debate here than just "winning." I've enjoyed discussing this with you, and I believe there is ground for some future fruitful discussion.

Personally, I was hoping you'd give us some fact of evolution equally provable as any of a number of facts of the Bible that are proven so we can compare which has the strongest foundation for actual truth. That's more or less the point of this thread. Or, we can move on to a different thread for a different kind of discussion.

OK?

Dave

14332[/snapback]

Dave, yeah, I think for me, the best thing to get out of a debate is to learn something new. I try to improve my own brain, and improving other people's brains is secondary at best. I can learn useful things from some people, and not from others. If you want facts of evolution, I made a thread about it here: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=1369

lwj2op2 · July 3, 2007

14269[/snapback]

I do understand the dilemma. I suffered under the same challenge when I began my research. I believed TOE and the Bible. I did all I could to justify them both with each other. They are incompatible.

I must say though, that on some points ignorance of the author must be accepted. No matter how well and completely I describe geothermal energy to a 5 year, the best they are likely to be able to relay to you is that steam makes light. Not untrue, but far from complete. God has a difficult time when explaining the universe to us. Especially what will happen tomorrow.

So, if there is any point of the Bible you would like to discuss, debate, etc.? I will do my best. For the rest of the threads and material, I ask only that you don't discount my reasoning BECAUSE of my faith. And do not discount Creation related information because of the source (Creationists). For my part I will not rely on the Bible as support for scientific statements. Try the global flood for example; don't assume there was no flood because it is biblical. Instead look at the evidence objectively. Could a global flood explain the condition of the planet today if it happened within the evolutionary time scale?

TempestTossed · July 3, 2007

I do understand the dilemma. I suffered under the same challenge when I began my research. I believed TOE and the Bible. I did all I could to justify them both with each other. They are incompatible.

I must say though, that on some points ignorance of the author must be accepted. No matter how well and completely I describe geothermal energy to a 5 year, the best they are likely to be able to relay to you is that steam makes light. Not untrue, but far from complete. God has a difficult time when explaining the universe to us. Especially what will happen tomorrow.

So, if there is any point of the Bible you would like to discuss, debate, etc.? I will do my best. For the rest of the threads and material, I ask only that you don't discount my reasoning BECAUSE of my faith. And do not discount Creation related information because of the source (Creationists). For my part I will not rely on the Bible as support for scientific statements. Try the global flood for example; don't assume there was no flood because it is biblical. Instead look at the evidence objectively. Could a global flood explain the condition of the planet today if it happened within the evolutionary time scale?

14347[/snapback]

"I believed TOE and the Bible. I did all I could to justify them both with each other. They are incompatible."

I agree completely. There was a time in my life when I believed the Bible, and I transitioned to a time when I stopped believing the Bible and accepted the probabilities of mainline theories of science. At no time did I believe in both. They directly contradict each other, and to acceptable Genesis as metaphorical when it seems meant to be taken literally seems awkward to me. There are millions of Christians who do it, and I don't know why. Maybe Christianity is just a philosophy, something like Buddhism, to them.

So maybe you are not understanding what I am saying. You seem to think that I believe both, but I don't.

lwj2op2 · July 4, 2007

"I believed TOE and the Bible. I did all I could to justify them both with each other. They are incompatible."

I agree completely. There was a time in my life when I believed the Bible, and I transitioned to a time when I stopped believing the Bible and accepted the probabilities of mainline theories of science. At no time did I believe in both. They directly contradict each other, and to acceptable Genesis as metaphorical when it seems meant to be taken literally seems awkward to me. There are millions of Christians who do it, and I don't know why. Maybe Christianity is just a philosophy, something like Buddhism, to them.

So maybe you are not understanding what I am saying. You seem to think that I believe both, but I don't.

14352[/snapback]

No I had no assumption of Christianity on your part. I feel the same toward those claiming the Bible but not accepting it as literal. The Bible offers no such option.

However to claim the science and the Bible contradict each other is not correct. In my view and I believe many (most?) YEC's;

God created the universe

So God created the laws which govern the universe

So, if true, the Bible can make no claim not possible within the laws of the universe

Creation has some of the same difficulties as TOE. Such as, what happened at the beginning of the universe? Both theories admit that the first few moments are unknowable.

TempestTossed · July 4, 2007

No I had no assumption of Christianity on your part. I feel the same toward those claiming the Bible but not accepting it as literal. The Bible offers no such option.

However to claim the science and the Bible contradict each other is not correct. In my view and I believe many (most?) YEC's;

God created the universe

So God created the laws which govern the universe

So, if true, the Bible can make no claim not possible within the laws of the universe

Creation has some of the same difficulties as TOE. Such as, what happened at the beginning of the universe? Both theories admit that the first few moments are unknowable.

14358[/snapback]

The ToE is the theory of evolution, meaning the theory that all life is related by common descent largely through the mechanisms of genetic variation and natural selection. Sometimes (or maybe a lot of times), the ToE is expanded in meaning to cover all of mainline naturalistic science that contradicts popular American creationism, including uniformitarian geology and big bang cosmology. I think it is better to say, "naturalistic theories," if that is what you mean, or it can be confusing and misleading. Not every theory that denies creationism is the ToE.

So maybe you mean, "Creation has some of the same difficulties as naturalistic science. Such as, what happened at the beginning of the universe? Both paradigms admit that the first few moments are unknowable."

I am not familiar with that admission in either camp, actually. You can fill me in on that.

trilobyte · July 4, 2007

please reply to this post HERE

SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Often we read where Christians deny the possibility of the events pertaining to the six day creation or the world wide flood of Noah. The major reason for this denial is due to claims that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis. Genesis is no longer scientifically feasible.

Despite the many scientific evidences pointing to a recent creation and a world wide flood as told in the accounts of Genesis there is still this nagging need to deny the accounts of Genesis yet believe the other scientifically impossible portions of the bible.

For those who choose not to believe in the accounts of Genesis an allegory must be drawn up to explain the verses.

Below are 9 scientifically impossible events that the bible presents as truth. Why is it that some of the events get dismissed and allegorized by ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œTheistic EvolutionistÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â while some of the other events are held on to and presented as the literal truth by these same ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œTheistic EvolutionistÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â despite their obvious scientific impossibilities?

If the answer is ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œmiraclesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â then why canÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t all the scientific impossibilities be miracles?

Why is it that the events such as a recent creation and the flood which actually have scientific data to support them become allegories while the others with no scientific support are still up held as fact? The creation of the world in six days did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.