Scientific Proof of the Bible vs Theories

'Your eyes look, but they do not see'

http://www.newcreationstudies.org/NewCreation/proof.htm#archeology
Proof from science that the Bible is real.

http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245
Proof that the Theories against the Bible are wrong.

Take your pick free thinkers.

the first movie on the second sight saying how this planet is spacificaly designed for life... yea ok life for forms that are carbon based cause i mean come on there are billions of galaxies and u truley beleive that there isent another type of life form that isent carbon base or anything else on earth? .... thinking that life has to b based on carbon is stupid thoughts... i mean i beleive in a other power but only because matter itself couldnet have just been here forever it had to come from somewhere... and if uhhh those movies are saying that evolution is false then how did we get blacks, hispanics, cacasuans asians, indian and the other types of pepole from only 2 humans adam and eve? and how can evolution b not ture when there are caves were it is always pitch black in right? well in these caves are fish that have no eyes and no skin figments ok i understand they live in the dark but these fish have eye sokets why would god give them eye sockets if they if they have no eyes and lived in the dark and i know these fish exsist because ive seen them

Your eyes can look but cannot see? I think that is very interesting. Basically that is related to buddhisim, sufisim, the mystical branch of Islam and meditation in general. However, there is nothing 'scientific' about it. All it implies is the existance of a soul.

these videos mostly just try to make Darwin look like a bad guy. he had some theories. yes they were flawed... get over it. nothing here undoubtably proves anything though.

Indeed, nothing is conclusive, there are still many unknown factors and known factors of uncalculatability, by these I refer to such things as not scientifically knowing the origins and full workings, history, and designs of life in all its various forms and roles, and its rediculous to make concrete determinations that declare otherwise, scientifically.

If you are basing your idea, theory, and or belief of religious text then the text is the evidence, evidence which currently is subject to very reasonable skepticism, but neither point of view at this time have the credible physical evidence to be certain. This is just a fact.

Regarding physical evidence corroborating timelines, which Pat may want to remind, I will pre-clarify that some accounted for events, most of which are wars accountable for as opposed to miracles or cryptic prophetic interpretation, are irrelevant to the point of life and creationism.

Where as proof such aforementioned miracles would have impact on religious claims, but mystical or religious accountings and perspectives of possible natural events or historical occurences do not.

The other point was that there is still much information to be unconvered and even more that is perhaps lost forever. With this caution is also needed before making grand conclusions or even ruling out grand theories prematurely. We simply don't know as per physical proof. Leaving both mainly argumented options still physically possible at this time.

Unless we know what all species exist and have ever existed, when they existed, how they came to exist, and or whether or not the bible is accurate through provable evidence, the fact remains that both theories are just that. The only difference is one is allowed to change, incorporate, or even go away if proven completely false, the other, I don't quite know what would happen if somehow the perfect most obvious evidence came to completely discredit the bible as factual in its prophetic and miracle claims.

That alone is worth thinking about.

Proof of spirit is something only we can provide for ourselves. I don't think it's something that can be scientifically proven in an empirical sense. But even if spirit exists (as I suppose it does in some sense), that doesn't mean that the Bible is automatically historically correct. There is alot of Truth about human nature in the Bible, as there is in many scriptures of many religions. But to say that the creation of Mankind in the sense of an actual Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is more scientific a theory as Evolution is ludicrous. However, the Theory of Evolution does not necessarily deem the Bible as a book of myths either. I understand that certain religious ideas about God assert that he experiences time "differently" than we do, that He may experience thousands, maybe millions of years in what may be percieved by Him as a matter of moments. In such a higher mental state it is quite possible that He does not percieve space as we ourselves do. After all, in such a time-experience, individual objects as we know them would not exist. they would come into being, live and disapear so instantaneously that they would have no immediate existence for Him. We as individual physical objects are too fleeting for God (spiritually we might have more substance for God). What might exist for God are the "substance" of Mankind spanning thousands of years, composed of millio ns of individual beings existing in th past, present and future simultaneously. In other words, a "substance' transcending space and time, a "substance" also known as Man, a metaphysical concept. This idea is similar to Plato's theory of the Forms, where each individual thing is more like an imperfect "atom" of some larger, more perfect substance he called form. The point I'm trying to make is that what appears to us as a gradual progression, or evolution, of man from lower forms of life to higher, may be to God as simply an immediate transformation of one "object" called Man. Just a weird theory of mine.

Adam and Eve is just as scientificly possible as evolution, you underestimate even the current abilities and near current abilities already in the works of man today.

With such things as Nano-technology and the integration of organic material and technology (bionics, cybernetics, matrix type of mental virtual reality), our world is going to become unrecognizable, once in full swing.

And should we perfect a matter transference device and or wormhole or some other form of major area coverage space travel device or ability, and or effectively trancend into a controlled field of concious energy again, our world and perception of all reality would take on new meaning and understanding.

Let alone allow for such things as odd and sometimes silly as those found in the bible, didn't it rain frogs once or something too?

As it is none of it probably matters because we are most likely just common microbes on a "planet" or physical body in whatever space is.

Yeah it did rain frogs, the amusing joke in Magnolia if you've seen it.

Here's another theory: Hope is an evolutionary advantageous trait for the human race, as it has already proven to be in the past. Humans put their entire effort into thinking some Divine being will save them in times of despair, and for some reason they muster up the courage to fight or become resilient instead of giving in. Now if you could eliminate this idea of God and fine-tune the effort that is usually a result of faith in an unseen being - you could tune it further and create quite the trait to have. An individual who, regardless of hope or not, can still manage to fight off potential risks and survive while others fail when they think their Divine crutch is gone.

Of course, I'm sure not everybody's going to be up for pursuing that experiment. But it's okay.

Note: Darwin lost his faith in God because he lost his favorite daughter to a genetic disorder that was running in the family, I believe he married his cousin. It wasn't because he realized the idea of natural selection or whatnot.

I guess faith is probably the underlying motive behind my thoughts as well...a subconscious way of seeking out the spirtual through unusual ideas and theories...and it is quite possible there actually was an Adam and Eve...Afterall, I believe that it is quite possible there were gods and unicorns and elves and such some time long ago...Of course, most people who believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible don't agree (even though there are references to unicorns in the Bible). I guess anything's possible, but it's my nature to have an opinion about something...It surprises me when I meet people who have no opinion, always questioning ideas without forming a final conclusion...Even Socrates had a final conclusion in his discourses...I guess I like to hear other people's opinions, hoping to find something in them that will alter my opinions....We grow as thinkers that way...

Well, I think evolution and creationisim are the same thing. I mean, obviously deers and dinosaurs couldn't have come out of thin air. The seven days stuff could just be symbolic u know.

True!...The whole story is probably symbolic...Adam and Eve might represent the male and female principle and seven days may be sybolic as well (seeing as how the number seven itself is very symbolic in esoteric thought)...Or maybe seven days may mean seven "god days" which might constitute millions of years...You never know, I guess...

"Proof of spirit is something only we can provide for ourselves. I don't think it's something that can be scientifically proven in an empirical sense."

Well thats awfully assumptive and leaves little room for anything.

Would it at least be safe to say that whether the bible is symbolism, or factual and the word of God, is an important distinction?

One that could very well determine the fate of many people's "beliefs". Let alone the view and accountings of history.

quote:

---

"Proof of spirit is something only we can provide for ourselves. I don't think it's something that can be scientifically proven in an empirical sense."

---

I tend to agree with you on that one. Science & technology is based upon theory & measurements (data). The scientific method calls for collecting data, theory then proof is formed by predicting the outcome. If the theory profvides a means of analytically describing with some accuracy then the theory is valid.
How does one access art? We can give analysis of pigment & stroke length & texture but that hardly defines the inspiration nor creative energy of the painter.

I think you over mystify the unknown.

Just because we don't know everything about everything doesn't mean there aren't simple and unspectacular answers behind them.

Art is emotional expression through various mediums, art is also just being good at anything.

Art in respect to the animal kingdom is related to things like mating rituals. I've seen elephants paint too, how magical.

"Proof of spirit is something only we can provide for ourselvesProof of spirit is something only we can provide for ourselves. I don't think it's something that can be scientifically proven in an empirical sense."

Do you disagree that this is pure speculation?

Define spirit. You do have some form of empirical definition do you not, or are you just making up or gowing along with romantic notions to make yourselves feel special?

If a spirit has any material or energy form or value, or exists in this universe, then there is empirical knowledge to be gained.

quote:

---

think you over mystify the unknown.

---

me http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/thrdid=14614-u-frmid=12-u-page=5
you must not have check this thread out?

quote:

---

I don't think it's something that can be scientifically proven in an empirical sense."

---

I heard rumor of cosmic rays that are of such high frequency that they pass strait through the whole earth

quote:

---

Do you disagree that this is pure speculation?

---

Oh, I sorry.
Looked it up they don't pass through the earth, rather they react with our atomsphere?

quote:

---

Define spirit.
You do have some form of empirical definition do you not, or are you just making up or gowing along with romantic notions to make yourselves feel special?

---

Commonly held spirit is inherent of living organism; trait example he has a gentle spirit. The other seems to be in debate doesn't it? Further that might appear as romantic notions to make myself special.