Why do people still tout historical "Evidence" for the Bible when science still proves it wrong?

Question

Earth and the universe are both too d**n old for literal Genesis!

Answer 1

Evolution is still a theory the last time I looked. Gravity is a law. God's book is full of laws and your conscience tells you this, because you know the difference between right and wrong. I don't understand your question. What historical evidence/science disproves the Bible?

Answer 2

Think of religion as a way of coming to terms with life or as a philosophy of living your life.  The only thing that is real to people is what they THINK is real to them.  Facts, objectivity, etc. are irrelevant.  Because there is no definitive proof of a god or a lack of a god, no one knows what is out there.  It is futile to argue with religious people.  This is how they choose to deal with life.  For most, they are probably happier that way.

The only real problem becomes when they infringe on other people's freedom and beliefs.

Answer 3

At best the bible is "faction"  fiction set in a factual setting.

The only historical evidence is in the setting and not in the stories!

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one!!! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!!

Outside of the bible he is not mentioned in anything until many years after his supposed death!!

The Roman Emperor Constantine produced the bible and he was a pagan not god!!!   He also organized Christianity into the Holly Roman Catholic Church!!  Not in Israel or any of the countries of supposed origin but entirely Italian!!

What a wonder full disinformation and deception campaign he waged against his Christian enemies - so good in fact that Christians are still following the deception to this day!!!

Answer 4

Hey, your question is boring.

Don't mind me as I use this post as my notes until I get home.

Samen Grail Wars

http://tatari.110mb.com/TMDP/index.htm

Answer 5

Because they like to flaunt their ignorance. The eyes of the religious will see only what they want to see.

Answer 6

OH yes, wikipedia must be the "atheist's bible".

It's quite obvious you've never read any creationist material, and thus would be ignorant of the hundreds of scientific facts that deny evolution and support a young Earth, a worldwide Flood and intelligent design.

Science does NOT disprove special creation in any way, shape or form.

Answer 7

Because it just goes to show, that to have faith in God is stronger than any science.  He can do the unexplainable.  When science says its impossible, He can still make it happen.  So the more science says, "Its impossible", the more magnificent, He is made to be.  (Because science is only proving that He CAN do the impossible) :0)

Answer 8

The thing that gets me is that there is not even historical evidence for the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth.  The Jews kept GREAT records ... so how is it that a man so completely and utterly famous in Galilee and the surrounding area was missed by the great scholars?  Seriously, they documented the release of Barabas...wouldn't that same day include the murder of a Jesus?  Come on...

Do NOT quote Josephus...many of the writings were proven false documents written after the founding of the church...thank you :-D  

Answer 9

because time is something that is in our own perspective and remember, you don't know everything, you don't know it all, science does not either.

Answer 10

Beats me it is not a History book. Why would I consult a book on Theology for answers about science or History? That's like looking in a Spanish book for German translations.

Answer 11

I like reading the responses from the bible followers.  Especially the ones that say something like evolution is only a theory.  Well, so is the theory of gravity.  So what is creationism then.  Was that ever made into a theory.  No.  Why is that.  Maybe because there is no proof other than the bible.  So the only real evidence of creationism is: person puts fingers in ears "lalala god did it lalala".

Answer 12

People still tout historical and scientific evidence for the infallibility of the divinely-inspired Bible because- misinformation or not (which it normally is) they believe it. What happens to you when you hear opinions that are directly opposed to yours? For example, if you are a typical liberal watching Fox News, your blood pressure is expected to spike several times per hour at a minimum. You simply wouldn't take their "news" seriously, and if you watched and listened at all you would only do so to scoff, disagree, and yell at the television.

This is how many of the Bible believers- Jewish, Christian, and Muslim, really- view the tenets of science that directly contradict their preconceived notions of reality. People do not think with their brains all the time every time- they become irrationally emotionally attached to their worldview because so many aspects of their lives rely upon it. And if you think you are any different in this respect, I encourage you to think again. And as a quick aside, what is the actual question that you are asking? As far as I can tell, you ask a sincere and serious question, and then use it to make cheap shots against creationists. Tell me, how much have you ever achieved by doing so?

Edit: For what it's worth, entertainment is about all these types of conversations have to offer.

Answer 13

Sorry but Science does not prove the Bible as wrong.  It only backs it up.

The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order?

How Long Is a Genesis “Day”?

Many consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion “day.” In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one “day”: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day [all six creative periods] that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”

The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.

Day” as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) “The day of harvest” involves many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) “Judgment Day” covers many years. (Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums.

Answer 14

1. Science has not proved evolution so it can not be dogmatically taught as fact. It is a fallacy and a lie to claim otherwise.

2. True science always supports the Bible, especially special creation and the Genesis Flood.

3. For a theory to be considered scientific it must be testable, repeatable, falsifiable, etc. Evolution fails on all counts. It is not possible to scientifically test or observe events that occurred in the past, especially evolution because of the time factor.

4. Sir Francis Bacon, the founder of the scientific method, gave a definition of science that evolution definitely does not meet.

5. Please explain something to me. Blue Algae is considered the oldest living fossil known to man, about 4 billion years old. Comparisons between fossilized blue algae and living algae clearly show that it has remained virtually unchanged. How is this possible after billions of years of supposed evolution? In fact, all so-called living fossils are a huge, inexplicable embarrassment to evolutionists.

6. All dating methods are extremely unreliable and those using them always begin with the assumption that evolution is true.

7. Evolution is guilty of circular reasoning. The fossils are dated by the layers in which they are found, the layers are dated by the fossils found in them and both are dated by the geological charts that were invented long before dating methods. That is using evolution to prove evolution, and it's just plain bad science.

8. Sorry STAX but every time the word yom is used in the Bible in conjunction with a number and/or the phrase morning and/or evening it always means a normal, solar day. There are no exceptions. Besides, if it wasn't literally 6 days then Exodus 20: 8-11 makes no sense whatsoever. God repeats Himself several times and goes to great lengths in Genesis 1 to clearly state exactly what He means by a day- the revolution of the Earth on its axis. In other words, a literal day. This is clearly stated by. "It was morning, it was evening, one day, etc. Gen 1:5 clearly defines what is meant by a day. Yes, the light portion of a day is called day, and it still is. Such are the problems of the English language. There are several other Hebrew words that mean an indefinite period of time, yet none was used. The Bible must be taken literally unless the context clearly demands otherwise, including Genesis 1. Jesus and the apostles all interpreted Genesis 1 literally.

Answer 15

Psych. Nestor, you are aware that its still called the Theory of Gravity aren't you, so that argument holds no weight

Answer 16

You really need to read the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

Edit: I wouldn't use Wikipedia to try and prove something

Answer 17

The fallacy is in your proposal that the Bible is false because you can provide scientific evidence that disputes or even disproves genesis. There are in fact many parts of the Bible that are true and verifiable. Now if you are arguing ONLY that the time-lines are not the same, that genesis must have been longer than what the Bible says, then we can have a debate. But to dismiss it as a whole because of one discrepancy is poor logic.

You might even present evidence to dispute several points in the Bible but I can do the same in supporting many things found there as well. Therefore, the best argument that you can put forth is your belief that some things found in the Bible are untrue.

Is that an accurate assessment of your stance?

Historical evidence as some people "tout" (your words) would/could refer to sites that have been discovered by archaeologists that are discussed in the Bible that were said to have been mythology by science in the past. There are many examples of science attempting to disprove things in the Bible only to have more modern scientists and their methods verify what is written in the scripture.

six days? hmm... I don't know. But I'm sure not going to discredit the whole Bible based on two chapters. As far as the idea of the earth being 6 thousand years old. Tell me exactly what book, chapter and verse is that quote in? Don't rely on what man says he thinks it says. You won't find that in the book. Sorry

I was just wondering why people are arguing about Jesus in this question. His followers were/are responsible for the New Testament, not the Holy (Hebrew) Bible. After HE came, the Old Testament was no longer necessary. We were/are to accept God as a loving and forgiving father and to live our lives by the example given by His Son. Did Jesus exist is another question? It should not be dragged into this one.

Answer 18

Really?

Because I thought the origins of the world and the universe were still theories.

In case you didn't know, theories are not scientifically proven.

Or else they wouldn't be theories.

And to those who say "ignorance", the day you can flat out prove there is no god, I will then convert to atheism.  Until then, find something better to do than ask questions on Y! Answers.

Answer 19

Science has actually done both. It has disproved some things, and backed up others. What people seem to fail to realize is that the Bible was indeed written by people. Weather or not you believe it was inspired by God is almost irrelevant in this question. Lets say that it was inspired by God. The same passage can often be interpreted a million different ways. Even if it was a persons own feelings, beliefs, teachings, and traditions will have some effect on what is written. Speaking from a purely historic perspective if you are writing about history some traditions will be warped through the ages, and some translations will change. There is some basis of fact as has been proved, but nothing written can be absolute. It can only be learned from taken as how something is interpreted. Beleif is up to you.

Answer 20

Science does not make this claim, only some people who interpret it, do. As for myself and many others, Science proves to us that the Earth is only 6000 years old.and that the Bible is correct.

Answer 21

Well if science is correct why is the moon at the wrong distance from the earth?

Answer 22

Willful ignorance.    

Answer 23

From your preposition I reckon you are non coignosant in neither subjects. It would be advantageous - at least as an excersice - to learn deeply both subjects so you can make an assessment based on knowledge, SOUND knowledge. This way you can see the truth. As it seems now, you are not very well versed on either one of them. No offense, please.

Answer 24

according to your web link they say the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine.

Here is why

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.htm...

So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age.

So proof that the earth is millions of years old is guessed because no actual rocks on earth exist to date earth so they assumed (which means guessed) it is as old as the universe.

Wikipedia says the age of the earth is determined by, This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material[2] and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Meterorites that fell to the earth were dated and compared to oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

But there are no old rocks to determine the age of the earth. The oldest rocks on the earth fell from the sky. So how can that give a date to the earth when it is not from the earth but the sky?

Call me crazy but how is that proof of the age of the earth dating meteorites and lunar rocks that came to earth?

Answer 25

It's just the "interpretation" dearie, the interpretation that's at fault.

Answer 26

Science wasn't created for the purpose of proving Religion wrong or vice-versa. An individual is born with the free-will to choose what he or she believes in, or nothing at all. If humanity stuck to the literal definition of "personal beliefs", and kept their convictions to themselves, it would save the world a lot of hurt, hate and war.