The Instigator
Abeceda
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The Bible Does Make Scientific Predictions

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
CosmoJarvis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 843 times Debate No: 99209
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

Abeceda

Pro

I heard someone state that the biblical record does not contain any scientific predictions, but I thought, that is impossible: a text with a thousand pages of world history certainly would contain scientific predictions somewhere.

I was not disappointed: I found a prediction in the very first book, where the biblical record writes of eight people being saved from a flood that the rest of the population did not survive. This certainly would have some genetic implications, I thought. Sure enough, it states that three of the women reproduced after the flood.

What does this mean? It means that there should be three main mitochondrial lineages in the world (small loops of DNA that nearly everyone inherits from their mother, never passed down through males). What do we find? We find three main mitochondrial lineages in the world, often labeled M, N and R (haplogroups).

I state that this is a scientific prediction that turned out to be successful. I have come across others as well, but I will only include this one in the debate, unless the opponent wishes to see more of them. Thank you.
CosmoJarvis

Con

Outline:
I. Introduction

II. The Validity of the Bible
III. The Scientific Fallacies of the Bible
VI. Sources

I. Introduction

This is an interesting topic. I personally believe that the Bible does not make scientific predictions. In fact, it has many fallacies that humans believed for centuries, such as the Earth being flat, and the Earth being in the center of the universe. Additionally, I believe that some of the Biblical stories, such as Noah's Ark, are scientifically impossible.

I will try to include as many credible sources, using arguments supported by science.

II. The Validity of the Bible

The Bible is a secondary source, a source created by people long after an event occured. The earliest holy scriptures of the Bible were made 20 years after Jesus's death. Additionally, the Bible was made during a time where people had a very small understanding of the world around them, and explained odd occurances with magic and religion. This is similar to the Greeks and how they explained things like the changing of seasons, the rising and fall of the sun, etc, with their Gods and religious stories, which we can assume to be false.

Additionally, as I have said in the introduction and will continue to discuss in greater detail in my next part of my argument, "The Scientific Fallacies of the Bible," the Bible has included things that modern science can confidently disprove.

III. The Scientific Fallacies of the Bible

The Bible has claimed many things, which have been disproven by modern science. The Bible even has inconsistencies which contradicts itself.

The Bible claims that the Earth is flat and does not rotate, as declared in Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable," Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm," and Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

The Bible also possesses incosistences such as: "GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created." and "GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created;" "GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time," and "GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later;" "GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit," and "GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years," (S2).

There are many things in the Bible that are downright impossible, such as the virgin birth of Jesus, being as there needs to be a male and a female to conceive a child for the reason of the creation of a fertile egg and embryonic development, alchemy and transmogrification such as a stick turning into a snake (S3), etc.

I would also like to discuss the story of Noahs Ark: a tale of which a family and Noah built a large ark capable of housing two of every creature on Earth to survive a flood that God created (not to mention the killing of millions in the process). It has been estimated that the ark would be "around 510 feet long and 51 feet tall." It would be physically impossible for one man and his family to build such an enormous ship capable of sailing for around 150 days (S4). There have been some predictions that Noah and his three sons could potentially build an ark in a mere 81 years (S5). However, during those times, the lifespan was relatively short, and it is highly unlikely that Noah and his sons would live that long. Additionally, it would be impossible for Noah to travel across the world to take and preserve two of each animal, including the penguins in the Arctic, the emus in Australia, the wild boars in Europe, the Canadian Geese in North America, and the llamas in South America. Also, if Noah's family were the only survivors after the flood, there would be noticable mutations and physical disabilities apparent because of inbreeding, even to this day, and it would also be apparent in the animals on the ark since there are only two of each.

The prominent scientist, Bill Nye, has also slammed the story of Noah's Ark, reinforcing his ideas with a thorough scientific approach: "My scientific colleagues go to places like Greenland, the Arctic, they go to Antarctica and they drill into the ice with hollow drill bits; it's not that extraordinary, and many have probably done it yourselves, like with hole saws to put locks in doors, for example. And we pull out long cylinders of ice, long ice rods. And these are made of snow and ice. It's called snow ice. Snow ice forms over the winter, and snow flakes fall, and are crushed down by subsequent layers. They’re crushed together, and are entrapping little bubbles. The bubbles must needs be [from] ancient atmospheres; there's nobody running around with a hypodermic needle squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles. And we find certain of the cylinders to have 680,000 layers. 680,000 snow winter/summer cycles. How could it be that just 4000 years ago, all of this ice formed? We can just run some numbers. Let's see we have 680,000 layers of snow ice, and 4000 years since the great flood, that means we need 170 winter/summer cycles every year. For the last 4000 years. Wouldn't someone have noticed that? Wouldn't someone have notice there's been winter/summer, winter/summer for 170 times in one year? If we go to California, we find the enormous stands of Bristlecone pines. Some of them are over 6000 years old. 6800 years old. There is a famous tree in Sweden is 9550 years old. How could these trees be there if there was an enormous flood just 4000 years ago?" (S6). To put it in more simplistic terms: if there was a flood 4,000 years ago, then how come there's no evidence that can be reinforced with science such as geology? How come there are trees that are over 4,000 years old that have still managed to survive to this day? If there was a flood during their life, they would drown and die from too much water.
Debate Round No. 1
Abeceda

Pro

I appreciate your participation, but I am afraid that it is not a possibility for me to engage in a debate with you, for the reason that you are not standing upon a neutral ground when making your arguments, f.ex., you simply assume that evolutionary theory is factual and base your arguments upon that assumption.

I respect your opinion that evolutionary theory (and other views) are factual, but in a debate, such opinions are not welcome. In order to make a sound argument, you have to argue from a neutral ground and build an argument from that perspective, not base your arguments on what your opponents is in disagreement with, f.ex., the lifespans of people in ancient times, the state of their genome.

If you are willing to abandon these arguments, and continue with legitimate ones, such as the snow-ice layers argument from Bill Nye, or dendochronology, then I would be happy to debate you, as these are things which are built from pure data and require no assumptions. These are things that I can respond to fairly easily and have a good understanding of.

Confirm that this is how you would like to proceed.
CosmoJarvis

Con

I have presented an argument with evidence and reliable sources. By all means, in a formal debate, you should take the opportunity to refute these claims of why I believe the story of Noah's Ark is fake, why I assume evolution is real, and so on. Tell me that there is more proof for things such as creationism, or say that I failed to use any information to back my claims.

Your failure to refute my ideas and evidence is no problem of mine, but of yours.
Debate Round No. 2
Abeceda

Pro

You using evolutionary ideas to raise your argument is the equivalent of me using biblical ideas to write my rebuttals. It does not work that way in a debate. It surprises me that you have not understood this basic rule of debate: both opponents are on ground zero and they work their way up - that is the way it works.
CosmoJarvis

Con

Your failure to debate falls only on you. If you think I'm assuming too much about evolution, call me out on it and explain why the biblical depiction of creationism is more realistic.

Your excuses do not constitute your inability to refute my claims.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ZakOak 1 year ago
ZakOak
"First the Bible does not call the earth flat. Isaiah 40:22 says, "God sits enthroned above the circle of the earth."

Circle shape is perfectly consistent way to descripe a flat earth (flat, disc shape). There is a hebrew word for sphere (not flat), but it is not used in here. Also it's funny that you accuse CON (and atheists in general) of taking passages out of context while doing that yourself just now. Read Isaiah 40:22 in full. It continues to talk about stretching skies above earth like a tent. This is also perfectly consistent way to descripe a flat earth and firmament above it.

"The passages about the earth being fixed and his meaning to that look like they were copied and pasted from atheist websites I've seen."

Uhh...or from the Bible.

"It would do good to look at the context of those passages to understand their meaning."

Yeah, i have heard that claim before numerous times, but the context is not usually provided by theist. Thus it is just a empty assertion if the context is not provided.

"Atheists tend to take passages out of context since they do not study the Bible much."

Nice generalizing. Also you should look into a mirror.

"Job 26:7 says God "suspends the earth over nothing."

...and it's also says that "He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble." (Job 9:6). There are actually the waters below the earth in Bible's concept of earth (read genesis). So it's techically not suspended over nothing. Normally the whole thing would sink, so it's suspended in "nothing" in that sense that it wont sink.

Job also talks about firmament (a solid dome, created in genesis) in Job 37:18. Firmament is a part of flat earth model. We know that such thing don't exist or never has been.

"I will stop here because I don't have time to continue."

Typical hit and run tactic.
Posted by Derivative87 1 year ago
Derivative87
I just joined debate.org. I'm not sure how this all works with commenting. I really don't want to help anyone win a debate, but I do have to correct Cosmo on a few things. First the Bible does not call the earth flat. Isaiah 40:22 says, "God sits enthroned above the circle of the earth." That was written in 700BC. Isaiah was living at the time of King Hezekiah. That is long before Columbus knew the world was round. The passages about the earth being fixed and his meaning to that look like they were copied and pasted from atheist websites I've seen. It would do good to look at the context of those passages to understand their meaning. Atheists tend to take passages out of context since they do not study the Bible much. The book of Job was written even earlier than Isaiah. Job 26:7 says God "suspends the earth over nothing. I could on and on about so much of Cosmo's material. He certainly has never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls if says everything was written after Christ. Many things like the flood, the virgin birth of Jesus, and his resurrection from the dead are all miracles. Only God could do them. I will stop here because I don't have time to continue. Cosmo should really do more research.
Posted by EggsAndSam 1 year ago
EggsAndSam
I don't see your point TropaBino. In his first argument, Pro presented a claim that he claimed to be true, implying that Pro means Scientific Predictions that came true. Further, Pro did not have any problems with the statement you showed, further implying that he meant predictions that came true. And as Pro said, the predictions in the Bible don't pertain to science as Pro showed by proving them ultimately false.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
I didn't contradict myself.
I simply stated that the Bible doesn't make predictions relating to science or predictions that use science. I continue by explaining how many statements made by the Bible are downright untrue.
Posted by TropaBino 1 year ago
TropaBino
Hey, all constructive criticism though. Don't let this stop you from searching God ;)
Posted by TropaBino 1 year ago
TropaBino
con;
You lost the debate in your introduction. Very sad...
"I personally believe that the Bible does not make scientific predictions. In fact, it has many fallacies that humans believed for centuries, such as the Earth being flat, and the Earth being in the center of the universe."

You just contradicted your self. You say the bible doesn't make any scientific predictions, yet in the next sentence you say the bible predicted the earth is flat.
You're wrong in both statements.

You might have debated more eloquently, but do so after reading the title "The Bible Does Make Scientific Predictions" it doesn't say -are the predictions in the bible all true-

What a long and beautiful way of conceding. hahaha

Losing a debate in your own introduction, let alone the rest, where you tirelessly fight to dig a bigger hole for yourself.

...
Posted by bumblebeeboy 1 year ago
bumblebeeboy
Um how is that first thing u said a prediction
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Thank you. This will be a useful tool in Biblical debates. I really appreciate it.
Posted by ZakOak 1 year ago
ZakOak
CosmoJarvis, there is a skepticsannotatedbible dot com for that already.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
What was the prediction ?... And did it predict that only non african have Neanderthal DNA.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ChadIrvin 1 year ago
ChadIrvin
AbecedaCosmoJarvisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con due to pro's backing out of the debate in round 2.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
AbecedaCosmoJarvisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seems to have conceded the debate in the beginning of round two.
Vote Placed by EggsAndSam 1 year ago
EggsAndSam
AbecedaCosmoJarvisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro backed out on terms not specified in the nonexistant rules, Pro cannot make up rules after the debate has started. Further, I fail to see Pro's reasoning in not being able to use "evolutionary ideas", they are not at all the equivalent of biblical stories for a theory is not a mere guess, but an explanation backed up by an abundance of evidence while a biblical story is just a story, many of which have been shown to be scientifically impossible by individuals such as Con and Nye. Regardless, Pro loses this debate for making up an excuse to back out of the debate.