Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[no1tovote4]

How do you prove a negative? How can you disprove something that only has resonance because of "faith"?

You've got it backwards.... Again, it's for someone setting forth the hypothesis to prove... not the other way around.

Theories have consistently been proven wrong in science, pretending that it doesn't happen simply is another attempt at misdirection.

One can prove that something didn't happen rather easily if evidence points in a different direction. You made one attempt at that with the 6,000 years thing. However your "theory" at that point didn't factor in the power of the Protagonist in the Creation story... Therefore your "evidence" wasn't strong enough for the proof that you asserted it was...

Let's say that one cannot prove that something is false... That means the Earth is the Center of the Solar System, right? The Earth is also still amazingly flat.

 

[jillian]

Theories have consistently been proven wrong in science, pretending that it doesn't happen simply is another attempt at misdirection.

One can prove that something didn't happen rather easily if evidence points in a different direction. You made one attempt at that with the 6,000 years thing. However your "theory" at that point didn't factor in the power of the Protagonist in the Creation story... Therefore your "evidence" wasn't strong enough for the proof that you asserted it was...

Let's say that one cannot prove that something is false... That means the Earth is the Center of the Solar System, right? The Earth is also still amazingly flat.

You want to go there? OK... I seem to recall the Church imprisoning a certain someone for asserting that the earth was not the center of the solar system.

Anyway... science certainly changes it's findings based on gathering of information as time goes on... but it doesn't render the scientific method invalid and allow one to substitute a religious tome for real science.

 

[no1tovote4]

You want to go there? OK... I seem to recall the Church imprisoning a certain someone for asserting that the earth was not the center of the solar system.

Anyway... science certainly changes it's findings based on gathering of information as time goes on... but it doesn't render the scientific method invalid and allow one to substitute a religious tome for real science.

Nobody has asserted that this tome be in place of science at any point in this thread. A question was posed whereby we find that the answer becomes more and more likely to be, "No!"

I have asserted that the scientific method was valid in the thread rather than invalid. I have pointed out that often science disproves theories by finding negating evidence. You have attempted to tell me that one cannot prove that something is "wrong" and I have shown you to be "wrong" on that rather clearly.

So, the original question still stands. Has the Bible ever been proven incorrect?

It appears that through all your long-winded hijinks to misdirect the thread, all we have from you is "No. I can't find any place therein to be proven incorrect."

Amazingly, I am not a Christian or a Jew, but I can still see that there is nothing disproven through any post herein...

 

[jillian]

Amazingly, I am not a Christian or a Jew, but I can still see that there is nothing disproven through any post herein...

The premise of the thread is fallacious.

And interestingly, not a single person has proven ithe Bible correct. Funny how that works.

 

[Nienna]

How do you prove a negative? How can you disprove something that only has resonance because of "faith"?

You've got it backwards.... Again, it's for someone setting forth the hypothesis to prove... not the other way around. By the by, you ignored what I said that is inconsistent with a fundamentalist belief in the bible. S'okay.

You should ask scientists how they "prove negatives." It's the POSITIVES that lack proof. Scientific skepticism allows for things to be disproven, but, even the most-often observed theories are open to question. If one sets forth a hypothesis, and that hypothesis does not occur, or factors occur which negate the possibility of the hypothesis, the hypothesis is considered disproven. Pick something in the Bible that you think proves that it is not 100% correct. Then we can talk. (Please, if it's going to be "evolution/age of earth, can we start another thread?)

 

[no1tovote4]

The premise of the thread is fallacious.

And interestingly, not a single person has proven ithe Bible correct. Funny how that works.

Hence the assertion by believers of faith. However those attempting to say "Prove it!" seem to lack any evidence contrary either... Hence the idea that those who believe are "foolish" tends to be lacking any evidence of "foolishness".

Anyway, it is not fallacious to disprove any portion of something that asserts to facts. It is, in fact, part of the scientific process to disprove theories.

Just saying it is fallacious to ask a question is another weak attempt at misdirection. Do you have an answer to the question? Has the Bible ever been proven to be wrong? It appears your answer is once again a rather long-winded and twisted version of, "No!" as I have ever heard...

 

[no1tovote4]

You should ask scientists how they "prove negatives." It's the POSITIVES that lack proof. Scientific skepticism allows for things to be disproven, but, even the most-often observed theories are open to question. If one sets forth a hypothesis, and that hypothesis does not occur, or factors occur which negate the possibility of the hypothesis, the hypothesis is considered disproven. Pick something in the Bible that you think proves that it is not 100% correct. Then we can talk. (Please, if it's going to be "evolution/age of earth, can we start another thread?)

Very true, scientific methods is not designed to ever prove a positive. It is however an intrical part of scientific method to disprove theories...

 

[Nienna]

The premise of the thread is fallacious.

How can a question be fallacious? A question makes no assertion that could be proven false.

And interestingly, not a single person has proven the Bible correct. Funny how that works.

Wow. :shaking head:

 

[Nienna]

Very true, scientific methods is not designed to ever prove a positive. It is however an integral part of scientific method to disprove theories...

Very true. Very logical.

 

[jillian]

Very true. Very logical.

Logical??? You want someone to disprove your faith and you want logic?

The question is fallacious because it has a fallacious premise... that someone must disprove you wrong. Logic dictates that one has to prove the assertion that it IS correct since one is making that assertion.

Now... faith? I would never attempt to disprove because it is just that... a matter of faith, not logic.

Once again... if I write an historical novel, it is no less a novel. If I write a morality play based on characters who existed in reality, it is no less a morality play.

And now I'm going to take my boy out to ride his bicycle.

Laterz.

 

[Gunny]

Logical??? You want someone to disprove your faith and you want logic?

The question is fallacious because it has a fallacious premise... that someone must disprove you wrong. Logic dictates that one has to prove the assertion that it IS correct since one is making that assertion.

Now... faith? I would never attempt to disprove because it is just that... a matter of faith, not logic.

Once again... if I write an historical novel, it is no less a novel. If I write a morality play based on characters who existed in reality, it is no less a morality play.

And now I'm going to take my boy out to ride his bicycle.

Laterz.

You're REALLY making yourself look bad.

 

[no1tovote4]

Logical??? You want someone to disprove your faith and you want logic?

The question is fallacious because it has a fallacious premise... that someone must disprove you wrong. Logic dictates that one has to prove the assertion that it IS correct since one is making that assertion.

Now... faith? I would never attempt to disprove because it is just that... a matter of faith, not logic.

Once again... if I write an historical novel, it is no less a novel. If I write a morality play based on characters who existed in reality, it is no less a morality play.

And now I'm going to take my boy out to ride his bicycle.

Laterz.

You are wrong. The question was to prove one of the facts wrong. The Bible asserts many facts within that could be disproven or could have supporting evidence found. There is a reason that many archeologists carry Bibles...

Once again... the morality play may use some facts, but others could be proven to be wrong as it is a story. Repeating this is a fallacy, it is called Ad Naseum... It doesn't make it any less fallacious. You again attempt to say that facts cannot be disproven, that tidbit has been shown to be totally incorrect yet you repeat it. Yes, that is definitely an ad naseum fallacy...

 

[no1tovote4]

You're REALLY making yourself look bad.

Yeah, I begin to feel embarrased for her...

 

[Nienna]

Logical??? You want someone to disprove your faith and you want logic?

The question is fallacious because it has a fallacious premise... that someone must disprove you wrong. Logic dictates that one has to prove the assertion that it IS correct since one is making that assertion.

I don't know if I would call that "logical." Perhaps something under the heading of "fair play." I have already stated my position that the Bible cannot ever be PROVEN true. However, it will never be proven false, either (I have faith in this). LOGICALLY, simply because "a" is true does not necessarily mean that "b" is false. There are unknowns that must be accounted for if either assertion was to be PROVEN.

If someone was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sections of the Bible are inaccurate, then I would either have to change my faith, or I would have to be illogical. However, if I assert that the Bible has never been wrong, and someone disagrees with this premise, then the onus shifts to the dissenter.

 

[8236]

"Races" did not evolve. They SURVIVED. A light-skinned people who migrated to a very hot and sunny area would be less likely to survive to breed because of skin cancer. A dark-skinned people who moved to a less sunny environment would be less likely to survive bc their skin blocks more vitamin K, which helps the body produce vitamin D, which aids the absorption of calcium in the bones.?

Yes, but this would still take many thousands of years longer than the time available in the biblical account.

Archaelogical evidence: the Neandertal people of Europe left remains with many bent bones. It has been postulated that this was a dark-skinned people who migrated north, and were unable to survive because of bone disease.?

Oh really? Thats interesting... So you believe Neanderthals existed. Where is that in the bible?

But, if skin color "adapted" to environment, how does one account for the fact that the Inuit people have brown skin, yet live where ther is not much sun?

1: Inuits moved into the arctic areas in only the last 10000 years. Before that it was under ice.
2: There is plenty of sun in the arctic, and it causes easy sun-burning due reflection from the icy environment, as anyone who has been on a skiing holiday will attest to.

 

[Nienna]

Yes, but this would still take many thousands of years longer than the time available in the biblical account.

Why do you think that?

Oh really? Thats interesting... So you believe Neanderthals existed. Where is that in the bible?

Are you assuming that I ONLY believe something is true if it's in the Bible? Or are you assuming that EVERYTHING that happened in the universe is accounted for in the Bible? Just wondering about the relevence of this question.

1: Inuits moved into the arctic areas in only the last 10000 years. Before that it was under ice.

I agree with this statement.

2: There is plenty of sun in the arctic, and it causes easy sun-burning due reflection from the icy environment, as anyone who has been on a skiing holiday will attest to.

This is a very good point. Perhaps this is why this brown-skinned people SURVIVED this environment.

 

[8236]

Are you assuming that I ONLY believe something is true if it's in the Bible? Or are you assuming that EVERYTHING that happened in the universe is accounted for in the Bible? Just wondering about the relevence of this question.

I just found it interesting that as a religious person you would introduce Neanderthals into the argument. It comes close to the topic of evolution - not a topic often used in argument by the religiously inclined on this board. But, hey maybe you believe in evolution and are religious - thats fine by me.

 

[8236]

I have already stated my position that the Bible cannot ever be PROVEN true. However, it will never be proven false, either (I have faith in this).

If someone was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sections of the Bible are inaccurate, then I would either have to change my faith, or I would have to be illogical. However, if I assert that the Bible has never been wrong, and someone disagrees with this premise, then the onus shifts to the dissenter.

This may seem like a tired old argument, but the bible does say 4000 BC for the date of creation. And saying things like 'a day then was a different length of time from a day now' to square this with the scientifically proven age of the earth and universe is just changing the position of the goalposts. Anyone can win any argument like that.

Do you accept that the earth is far older than 6000 years? If so, then the bible is wrong by any reasonable burden of proof.

 

[no1tovote4]

This may seem like a tired old argument, but the bible does say 4000 BC for the date of creation. And saying things like 'a day then was a different length of time from a day now' to square this with the scientifically proven age of the earth and universe is just changing the position of the goalposts. Anyone can win any argument like that.

Do you accept that the earth is far older than 6000 years? If so, then the bible is wrong by any reasonable burden of proof.

The Bible makes no such perfection of date. This has been covered already in this thread. Catch up, or you'll repeat false information.

 

[Gunny]

I just found it interesting that as a religious person you would introduce Neanderthals into the argument. It comes close to the topic of evolution - not a topic often used in argument by the religiously inclined on this board. But, hey maybe you believe in evolution and are religious - thats fine by me.

Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive topics. Only closed-minded people make them so.