What are some PROOFS!!! that Biblical science(biology, sociology,archeololgy,anthropology,physics,astronomy, math,etc.)are trueth or fact. state answer and how you know this.

Well it does say the heavens are above and the Earth below, and indeed when I look down I see ground, with sky above it. They got that part right with only very limited technology.

• Report

by HasntBeen on July 16th, 2009

do you not see where egypt is located or what pharos were at what time. just starting with this this is science it is anthropology. so your statement is incorrect about it not being science.
though i disagree +2 thanks for info

• Report

by guardian on July 16th, 2009

Yes, everybody agrees that the Bible has some historical value... that's not normally what is meant when someone starts talking about 'Bible science'.

• Report

by HasntBeen on July 16th, 2009

thus my question. (.......)

• Report

by guardian on July 17th, 2009

I'm not sure the Bible has any historical value - that would imply it has helped push the study of history forward somehow.
.
I does contain some historical fact - which of course is known because of extra-Biblical sources.
.
Wide... +6 :-)

• Report

by 23Skidoo on July 17th, 2009

their are many that have been tested especially in anthropology and archeology. many old books are used this way. the Mahabharata and ramayama(india), the sumeritan texts(sumeria) the book of the dead(egypt) and many others we have found that even though we thought one thing happened we found that the books were correct. mahabharata we have dated by the star constelations. I have personally been working on cartography via the sumerian texts. the pillar salt flats from sodom and gomorah. their are many.

• Report

by guardian on July 17th, 2009

The statements in the Bible have been subsequently tested by fields of modern science, yes. Perhaps you and I use the term' Bible Science" in a different manner. I'm referring to the belief that the Bible contains scientific postulates, hypotheses or facts. It contains only statements, which later been verified by science.

• Report

by Gideon on July 17th, 2009

+2 sorry i always give even if i dont agree...

• Report

by guardian on July 17th, 2009

but thats all science does. it takes something (a bumble bee) and says I see it fly I see it manuever around, wonder how. then we take scientific data (how many flaps/s and size weight mass air density knowledge of the sun) and start to understand the bumble bee. (by all physics last i heard bumble bees should NOT be able to fly) so their is something else needed in the equation. we do the same with the Bible we take an incident (Goliath) and we say (could a human body support that size weight were their other records of large humans in ancient and modern times if so difficulties or ways they got around problems...etc.

• Report

by guardian on July 17th, 2009

thus we take a hypothesis and see if it is valid or NOT valid.
or the ten commandments we can test (sociology and psychology) and see if not doing those things helps out our life or hurts our life or if some do and some dont. these are tests that are available. this doesn't prove the bible it starts to prove the bible.

• Report

by guardian on July 17th, 2009

I was meaning that the "hypothesis" of said events and testing them to see if they can be a truthful theory or not.
+2

• Report

by guardian on July 20th, 2009

I'm still lost.
Do you mean, "Have any of the central claims in the Bible, like Jesus's miracles (or even his existence), resurrection, etc been scientifically verified?"
.
Thanks for the pts :-)

• Report

by 23Skidoo on July 20th, 2009

actually its because of your question that I am writing this question.it caused me to think if their is any ROCK SOLID evidence for the claims of christianity or creationism or biblical truth.see I know that their are plenty of arguments against evolution(i know plenty)but that does not prove creationism and creationism does not prove Biblical claims.see I am and are interested in being a PROCREATIONIST,not ANTIEVOLUTIONIST.I live in america I joined the military so EVERYONE could choose what they believed(even if i think its foolish).

• Report

by guardian on July 20th, 2009

thus my question of PROOF not antievolution (which is what i usually see)see I want theoretical analytical proof that it is true,and I have plenty myself but It seems that most other people don't. or seem not to by my question(posted in science and bible.)one proof is Pleonium halos(spelling???)which formed in rocks after they were solidified but only form"in the first nanoseconds of objects"these testable proofs can be replicated in a nuke lab repeatably(it does not mean its true it just fits the model)that is testable and proveable.it is now a strong theory like evolution.

• Report

by guardian on July 20th, 2009

polonium halos(sorry bout spelling)info below.
http://www.halos.com/

• Report

by guardian on July 20th, 2009

or another proof that the bible could have happened the way it said. is the flood test/geologic table compared to density/(i put it in your "PROOF" info but found that it didn't prove GOD it gave proof to the truth of the Bible and thus toward the biblical GOD.

• Report

by guardian on July 20th, 2009

OK. Now I get it and I applaud your effort.
.
There are no proofs against evolution. There are creationist and ID claims To my knowledge, they all fall into 2 categories; the untestable (irreducible complexity) or the refuted (no transitional species in the fossil record.)
.
As far as the polonium halos, I'd never heard of it. I looked and in the 1st 2 pages of Google all I saw in an admittedly quick scan, were creationist sites talking about it. I would expect some geology, physics and maybe cosmology sites discussing any real, scientific evidence of this kind. This makes the whole thing somewhat suspect.
.
And the flood - the geological record shows that the last global flood was 100's of millions if not billions of years ago (I don't know). No where in the range of humanity's existence here.
.

• Report

by 23Skidoo on July 20th, 2009

(flood)but thats what you believe because you have always been told that...and you have done research on it and believe that the geologic table is based on time. animals die more dust settles over thousands of years and more animals and plants die. giving layers.my point is that the flood story (to me) makes sense via the geologic table(if the goelogic table is based not on time but on density){see your question on proof and my second answer}this is something that can be tested over and over. just as if we kept laying down dead creatures and more layers of "rock" debree. both fit the geologic table.(from that perspective)

• Report

by guardian on July 20th, 2009

Um... OK. :-)

• Report

by 23Skidoo on July 20th, 2009

great answer. certainly something we would have not known, unless we were a more advanced society, not cave men or hut builders, or given the info from GOD....
+3
GOD BLESS

• Report

by guardian on November 6th, 2009

great answers...
+3

• Report

by guardian on November 9th, 2009

just a thought: their is egyptian anthropology and archeology. you take what is written in ancient texts and you use that in research to find what they ate and how they made boats and where they conquered and what genes passed to nearby places and what times of the year they did certain things with star charts and radiography on pharos head and why it was so large and how they died, and how they erected the monoliths and and and.... this is the same as BIBLICAL SCIENCE. taking what the bible says and seeing if it was or could have been how it says it was...+3

• Report

by guardian on November 9th, 2009

Biblical archeology just described ordinary archeology specializing in Biblical places, time frames etc.
.
But there is no such thing as Biblical (or Egyptian or Zoroastrian or...) physics, math, astronomy, biology, etc.
.
If the Bible says that Pi=3 it's simply wrong [Math}.
.
If it says the Earth is like a circular object and the sky is like a tent - it's wrong. [Astronomy]
.
If it says that all life in its current form came about at around the same time, it's wrong [Biology].
.
If it says that there was a global flood within the last 10,000 years, it's wrong. [Geology]
.
Sure, one can study the astrology / astronomy of the Mayans or Mesopotamians and see how advanced they were - but it's still using regular old science as they tool of study and the yardstick with which to measure.
.
Science is science. :-)

• Report

by 23Skidoo on November 9th, 2009

however if I said, "Science says, that the earth was created 6000yrs ago" you would be greatly offended and I would get a letter longer than our normal conversations. so thus I say, BIBLICAL SCIENCE, to differentiate just the same as we say Euclidian Math, or Roman Numerals, or Newtonian Physics. it simply says ... this type and kind of thing...whether it is right or wrong is for another day and another paper. so right or wrong, its still science. its just a theory...

• Report

by guardian on November 9th, 2009

I don't really get offended :-)
If you said that science claims the earth is 6000 years old, I'd ask you to substantiate the claim. And if there was actually good science to support it, I'd have to revise my views. That's how science works.
.
"Biblical science" sounds to me like "creationism" or perhaps "mythology" dressed up in a lab coat. Euclidean math is a kind of math and say that differentiates it from Non-Euclidean math. The same goes for Roman numerals as opposed to Arabic ones we are more used to. Newtonian physics is just a subset of physics in general.
.
Trying to sneak "Biblical science" into such a list comes close to being offensive since it's not a subset of the whole or a standard, accepted variant. It's an attempt to borrow unearned legitimacy.
:-)

• Report

by 23Skidoo on November 9th, 2009

Skidoo, my appologies, I didn't mean YOU as YOU but YOU as the mainstream scientific community...
.
Biblical Science says that what the Bible says is true (misinterpretation or mistranslating aside) and thus the Justification of it. YES YES it makes a very big bias...or preimptive thought.
Creationism (science) is that something Knowledged created everything, and thus doesn't stand solely on the BIBLE but most do. it is better difined as Theological Science.
6 Day Creationism says that the Biblical point of Creation is the correct one, and thus different, however most simply say their creationists.

• Report

by guardian on November 9th, 2009

but back to the topic that you brought up, and back to my argument, is People talk about Egyptology, the ology of Egypt, or the scientific study of Egypt.
well what word would you like to use. (again we are seeing if the Bible is true or fact and not that it is true or fact)
Biblyology, I think that sounds lame, thus instead of saying the science of the BIBLE, we write Biblical Science.
you come up with a better one I will probably use it...if you say something that makes it stupid I'll just shrug...hahah

• Report

by guardian on November 9th, 2009

thanks for that good info...I didn't know that.
GOD BLESS
+3

• Report

by guardian on November 6th, 2009

just fyi the word Circle in that text is from the root word HUG,,, like to hug somebody... thus it is more of a sphere not circle...
GOD BLESS
+3

• Report

by guardian on November 6th, 2009

Thanks. Interesting information.

• Report

by vew573 on November 8th, 2009

http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7807720

• Report

by Texasescimo on November 8th, 2009

good note...
GOD BLESS +3

• Report

by guardian on November 6th, 2009

great answer, however I didn't say tell me what is absolute to show GOD is real... or give me proven facts, I asked for proofs of facts, a proof is different than proven. like I can tell you from many proofs that the US flag is red white and blue, but if we looked at it in other open Electromagnetic spectrums you would say differently. a proof is something that is stated and seems to be correct. but my statement was more to have people give info about things like (below)

• Report

by guardian on November 9th, 2009

you see your car outside, no one says...oh man that is awesome how it just formed out of the ground. they say, shwwwww their must have been a lot of engineers and scientists and hard labor workers to build that... thus a proof to complexity (and I dont mean a little randomness) of just the human body alone and how it works together and works on other systems and other systems and each one is part of the whole, so much so that the complexity of a "Simple single cell" is not simple at all but more advanced then all of our understanding in nanotechnology can preform.
+3

• Report

by guardian on November 9th, 2009

No, the evidence supports the conclusion that my car was made by engineers and auto workers. However, the evidence does not prove this to be the case. Evidence may support some of the Biblical sciences, but that is not the same as proofs.
-
My problem here is that my scientific training makes me shy away for the use of the words proofs and prove. These words imply absolutes. They imply that there is no room for debate or doubt. As a scientist, there should always be room for doubt. So, from my perspective, there is evidence that either supports conclusions or disproves them, but there is not proof. You can very well say that I am arguing semantics here and I won't disagree with you. However, this is just the way I look at it.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on November 9th, 2009

I will state that, however I totally understand. will you reply again in another answer area on this question for "Supporting conclusions" that you agree with.
Thanks GOD BLESS.

• Report

by guardian on November 10th, 2009

I think that they are major proofs, proof just continues on more and more of the YES answers pointing toward it as the right direction, +3

• Report

by guardian on November 9th, 2009

Thank you for your feedback.

• Report

by Texasescimo on November 9th, 2009