The debate "Science proves the Bible and disproves the Big Bang.Comment your thoughts" was started by
May 9, 2020, 6:00 pm.
21 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 64 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Bgvikings08 posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
diecinueve posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, Cdawgthree posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Bgvikings08, megha, ProDavid, jrardin12, charles and 16 visitors agree.
Rashia, diecinueve, Allirix, chinexs1ng, PisalRT, EdgarQer, Nemiroff, safalcon7, Proking, dump_trump, Cdawgthree, Clint1234, tyler0300 and 51 visitors disagree.
The Bible contains metaphysical paradoxes. It's as simple as that. How is one supposed to claim that the study of the physical world is supported by an ideology that denies the basis of physics?
"we do have proof. The world has contained many things that the Bible has said. The Bible has nothing against it"
No no no. The Bible only contains many truths about the world b/c you either cherry pick what you want to read or interpret the ever-lasting hell out of the verses. You don't get to use your 21st century interpretations to make things fit together. That book claimed that the sun literally stopped moving AROUND the earth, that there was a fermerment, that the offspring of breeding is altered by vision, that the world was 6000ish years old, and that the earth had supporting pillars.
also, how exactly is "the world containes many things found in the bible" science? wouldnt that be history, or just casual observation? how is this related to science?
that doesnt sound like proof. sure many true texts describe "things the world contains," but so does alot of fake texts. many movies feature real places and representations of real people... that doesnt make those movies true.
can we recreate biblical events in a lab? if not, why do you accept them? do you accept a lower standard of proof for the bible than for science? your skepticism is very one sided. thats not real skepticism.
we do have proof. The world has contained many things that the Bible has said. The Bible has nothing against it
if we have no way of knowing what happened in the past, then how is it that you claim the bible to be truth? can we recreate those events in a lab? or do you accept a lower standard of proof for biblical claims?
yet how can we not know how the first things were formed? scientists cant even form a single dna cell
objectively untrue claim
the cosmic microwave background is radiation from millions of years ago that we can detect. Thanks to it we can know what the universe was like in its origins, and what we see can only be explained coherently with the big bang model. Since it was discovered, the entire scientific community agrees with this theory.
How does science prove the bible?