I know that in the Bible and I think also the Quran, the books claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old and was created in 7 days. Are there any other falsifiable claims made by these texts?
“Falsifiable” is a pretty high bar. Since the 6000 year old thing is flat-out false by all available evidence, the most common explanation I’ve heard is that the earth was “created old.” But more generally, the Abrahamic religions propose a omnipowerful God, none of whose works can be falsified, because by definition it’s possible for Him to have “faked the evidence” that leads to falsification. So nothing is falsifiable, by the definition of “God.”
If science, reason, and logic held sway against the supernatural, all but one religion would have died out long ago. It doesn’t, they haven’t.
The Bible certainly doesn’t say that the earth is 6000 years old.
Not directly, but it does have the various quite specific tables of generations…
That people who could work miracles existed,
and yet only remained in the middle east.
Jesus didn’t say much scientific. He said that you can’t build houses on the sand ?
Does that set the upper limit of his knowledge , which falsifies that he is “like god”.
Old testament… bats are birds . Menstruation is unhealthy.
Again, its such a poor level of scientific knowledge … its reflecting the standard knowledge of the time and NOT anything inspirational.
The complete lack of inspirational scientific knowedge is rather suspicious.
The thought is that with so much communication from god to people surely he would have to slip in some new and illuminating scientific knowledge ?
"“Even though bats are of the family of mammals - if you look carefully, you can see their mammary glands …See more proof I am god, haha ! - they are unclean, as too are birds of prey”.
But, then its ontological argument … something about the ‘meaning’… I am saying the limit on the meaning is significant… Other people will say that the god-human communication is limited to the knowledge of the human or else they would not understand the message… they use apolojetics to say that "god makes sure not to influence the humans in any other way than spiritual guidance’…
That everybody had to go back to their hometowns circa 4 BC to participate in a census of the Roman Empire. I’ve heard this as an example of a falsifiable (or not otherwise verifiable) Biblical claim, but am not an expert.
It is certainly false by logic. The reason to carry out a census is to gather information about the people currently living in a certain place (including of course simply how many there are), so that plans for infrastructure, services, etc., can be made. It makes absolutely no sense to compel everyone to return to his/her place of birth.
Moreover, what if the husband is from one place, the wife is from another, and their baby is from a third?
A census is like a stocktake - you don’t send the goods back to the manufacturer, you count them where they are.
You can’t falsify the assertion that the universe was created five minutes ago with all our memories intact and all the zombie threads here. So if you believe in an omnipotent god, nothing could be falsifiable. Of course, if you believe in scientific evidence, then, for example, the creation of the universe in 6 days is false. The miracles? The trouble is that you can’t prove they didn’t happen. That census? Well, there is no evidence it did happen that way, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
On the census at the time of Caesar Augustus, see: What did the census at the time of the birth of Christ accomplish? - The Straight Dope
The calculation of the earth as 6000 years old is based on the assumption that the text is literal rather than poetic. Certainly the text posits that human civilization (calculating backwards) is around 6000 years old, but whether the creation was in six literal 24-hour days… well, most of us read that as poetic, six time periods, each period lasting many millions of years.
The question of “falsifiable” is sticky and depends on definition. The bible mentions many events that we can’t prove happened, but neither can we disprove they didn’t happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Another example: the Exodus story has an Israelite census of 600,000 males. It is certainly impossible that over a million people could have wandered the Sinai peninsula for 40 years with out leaving traces. So, if you want to take the numbers as literal, that would be a false statement. If you want to take the numbers as poetic (40 symbolizes generational change, 6 symbolizes creation, etc) then it’s poetry, not scientific demographics.
The bible and Koran claim that all humans are descended from a common ancestor. I don’t know whether that’s true or not, it probably is if we go back to pre-human ape-like creatures. But the moral lesson – that all humankind should treat each other as brothers and sisters – is one we have yet to learn.
Maybe in the present. It has been quite a while since I have read the New Testament and do not remember any mention of planning infrastructure, services, etc. Perhaps some bureaucrat in Rome decreed that to determine the size of the Empire was best done by counting family lines and descendants from them.
I do seem to remember that they were returning to the land of Joseph’s family, not Mary’s.
For the Bible to falsifiable, you have to make the assumption it is factual. If, however, you consider it poetic or metaphorical then you’re out of luck. The next problem is going to be “factual” readings that discount divine intervention to make them possible. Consider the following
“The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day” - Joshua 10:13
Factual - the earth stopped and then restarted rotating requiring - 2/5MR[sup]2[/sup]w be shed and required - falsifiable
Poetic - the battle lasted a long time - N/A
Factual - the earth stopped and then restarted rotating however due to God’s intervention no actual shearing of the crust, massive outlay of energy or disruption to the environment occurred - N/A
So your first problem is going to be which Bible are you assuming exists?
When come back, bring reading comprehension.
Yes, those lineage tables are there. Nowhere, does it indicate, or infer, that they represent a history of the physical earth.
There’s quite a bit in Genesis that describes what happened BEFORE man was put on the earth. Now, it does say, after each “segment” or “event” of creation, “and there was an evening, and a morning, a (first, second, third, etc.) day”. That’s the puzzling bit, and what requires, if you ask me, for you to insert your own flavor of faith for interpretation. Some religions call this a “day” with 24 hours. Some religions call it a “day” the way your grandpa would say “Back in my day…” indicating a period of time longer than 24 hours.
I love that account. People in my congregation always wince when this is being discussed and I :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
It’s obviously not meant to be taken literally. How could it be? It would essentially destroy any faith in God that I had, if He expected me to believe that happened exactly as it was written. Either the guy writing it simply didn’t understand what phenomenon happened, or it was a super huge embellishment, or there’s some factual errors there. “God can do anything, he’s God.” - Yes, but why the hell would he? It’s nonsensical, and offers no advantage, and with His foresight He would know that more educated people in a few thousand years would have their faith shattered by a literal presentation of something so fantastical which had no corroborating evidence and violated every physical law He set in place.
And I do ***not ***believe that: The Bible is 100% factual and perfectly literal.
I also don’t believe that making the above statement is in-congruent with a faith in God. Crazy fundies of Christianity are just as bad as crazy fundies of Islam. The bible says that it is inspired of God, not written by him. I wish people would stop trying to make it so…
Of course, the Bible contains contradictions, so at that level, it’s falsifiable without referring to scientific facts. For example, the two accounts of creation are slightly different, incompatibly so. Interpreted literally, if one is correct, the other is incorrect.
There is no evidence that there was ever an evolutionary Adam and Eve. That is, the evidence does not suggest that there was one couple that all humans descended from. The best we have is the “mitochondrial Eve”, who is on every human’s strict maternal line of descent (with a caveat I won’t go into). That does not mean that we aren’t also descentants of other women who lived at or before the time of Eve.
Or icky and disturbing. Or messy. Ritually unclean isn’t exactly the same thing as literaly unhealthy.
Ahem. Taxes. You don’t know what total to give to the tax farmers if you don’t know how many people they can shake down. If you can’t give them a number, the tax farmers will bid low.
No.
First, it was never the Empire that was counted. It was smaller areas. Second, how would that work? In times where plagues could sweep through, pruning and expunging lines randomly? How do you define a line? Why would you? If a man has a dozen daughters, ending his line, does that mean that the population went down?
In Napoleonic times, there was a calculated census of France that relied on mathematical extrapolation. It relied on newly reliable birth data that was being collected in each town. They picked a couple of villages, counted everybody, and compared the total to the birth records for the village. That gave them a number of births, per year, per hundred people. Then they added up all the birth records in France and multiplied it out.
That gave a pretty reliable number. How would you count lines? What would you multiply it by? Births were not regestered. The fecundity of lines is chaotic. Forget, for a moment, the unnecessary disruption, how would you even start to do the math?
The Bible doesn’t say how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. For all anyone knows, the writer believed they had been there for millions or billions of years, not aging a day while Earth aged around them. A potential problem with this is that the Bible does give Adam’s age at death, though one might argue that this age may only represent the time outside the Garden since he otherwise was immortal.
Please leave ad-hominem attacks at the door.
Many serious researchers have posited a 6Ky age for the earth based on interpretations of the Bible. This site has a list: Age of the Earth Topic | Answers in Genesis
Note that I don’t mean “scientific researchers”.
There is a lot of debate over what the term “day” meant, but there is good evidence for the literal meaning of the term, unless one takes the “entire Bible isn’t literal” approach.
That is, if one takes the Bible literally, there are good arguments for each “day” of creation being roughly equivalent to today’s 24-hr period (as well as good arguments in the contrary). You can’t dismiss either side casually, as though it’s a silly notion. The arguments for both sides are considerably less silly than believing the Bible literally in the first place.
the biggest falsifiable claim is that there is an invisible being/man in the sky that all should pray to or end up in the pit.
Fair enough.
So, considering the belief that the entire Bible is literal to be a “silly” belief (though the level of silly is undetermined) - is somehow not dismissing that side casually?
I dismiss it with prejudice - not casually. The entire Bible *can’t *be literal. If that fact is in question, then this is no longer a discussion worth pursuing.
The true debate only lies where one draws the line. I especially like Mark 13:14 . It’s basically telling the reader that this particular verse requires more than the usual attention and understanding, implying that other verses do not. Why make the distinction? Because (in my opinion) it was common knowledge among those who read the scriptures available at that time that not all of it could be taken literally - and a lot of it was dismissed completely because of this (not that it should have been, it simply was, as evidenced by the decidedly un-biblical conduct of the people).
the bible…the greatest fairytale ever written.