The Bible is a clearly written record set down by witnesses.
Science has the record of nature which can be interpreted many ways. That's why things like the Theory of Evolution remain as theory (of course, since it has been proven wrong the many times it HAS been proven wrong, it shouldn't even be in the realm of "theory"). The scientists weren't there. They have no witnesses. The few that they would like to call witnesses, don't have the standing or the solidity of the Bible and Bible tradition backed by a nation like Israel.
You did not witness the "witnesses" who wrote the Bible, so that's more-or-less hearsay without (wait for it...) scientific evidence.
Then, you go denouncing science again which I'm sure you jump to any time any scientific paper claims Biblical support. However, scientists not only transcribe what they witness, but they provide you with
an exact method so that you can try to replicate the event for yourself and draw your own conclusion.
You really need to get off this "science is bad" shtick. There is absolutely zero reason why science and religion must be mutually exclusive when they're both interested in the same thing, i.e. uncovering true knowledge.
See? That's the response that I would expect from someone who doesn't back up his definition of science with a scientific definition.
Science includes very duplicatable things, like the making of the sulphurized thermit that took down the Twin Towers.
Science also includes the hogwash ideas of Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe, and many others which are not duplicatable, or provable.
Now, it is not the scientists themselves mostly. It is the politicians among them, who often take on the name and role of "scientist" just so that they can further their political agenda.
There is no science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways other than those expressed by Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.
The strength of Bible as history, and of the writers as witnesses, can be shown by the dedication of the people who passed on the Bible from generation to generation. It is also shown in the traditions of the Israel people that the Bible is truth. They don't acknowledge the Bible here and there. Rather, they acknowledge it in their everyday living, attempting to strictly follow the Laws of Moses that were written about 3500 years ago, because these laws are the reality of living for us all.
If you want a more "scientific" form evidence, check out Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's almost exactly the same as any of the later copies. That's as much as a 2,000 year separation. Such dedication is not preserved among any other religions, and is not being shown among the politics that moves science. The dedication exists because the Israel tradition is that it is reality.
There's a lot more that could be said that would strengthen the position of the Bible as truth. But this isn't the place for it. Search it out for yourself if you are interested.
*Facepalm*
Again, you
absolutely MUST distinguish between science as a method and science a body of evidence. This is an elementary distinction that, for some reason, you're having an extraordinarily difficult time picking up on.
There is no relevant response I can make until you understand this distinction. Your misunderstanding of this distinction begins with your first sentence, thus rendering everything that follows as an abysmal understanding of scientific progress and how it compares to the pervasiveness of the Bible.
Edit: A note about evidence: Evidence simply means "that which is apparent." When you go to the Bible for evidence, what "is apparent" is that there is a page with words on it. That is it. Seriously, that's where the buck stops, and you need to turn the authority over to scientists (e.g. anthropologists) to use the Scientific Method to search for additional evidence to support the Bible.
Using the Bible in and of itself as evidence holds the same weight as grabbing Humpty Dumpty and using it as evidence. At this point, it seems your understanding is worse than I thought, because you don't even know what evidence means. That's pretty shocking, sorry to say.
Oh, neat. Now you want a description of science that distinguishes from another description of science. But you will find that the word has taken on all kinds of meanings among the different people, right down to stating that your electric range is science.
Isn't it time that you get off it and see the light? There is no/NO/
NO science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways, including other than those expressing Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.
If you picked up a book - a Bible - off the street, and you looked at it, you couldn't tell much of anything - ink on paper. But if you did a
SCIENTIFIC study on everything pertaining to the Bible that you could find, you would find that the very existence of the Bible is one that is impossible. It can't exist as it is, except that it DOES exist. And I mean scientific in the way of investigation.
But if you don't know this about the Bible, then all the Bible will ever represent to you is some ink on paper. Scientific investigation of things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe produces scientific results that state that these things are inconclusive according to every method we have for testing them scientifically.
In other words, things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe are real only in the minds of the people who want them to be real. The Bible, however, can be scientifically shown that its existence is impossible, yet we have it.
Think before you speak. Here's what you're constantly missing, even though I already quoted this for you:
sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field
"the science of criminology"
a particular area of this.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"
synonyms: physics, chemistry, biology;
I emboldened three phrases. The first phrase corresponds to a *method*. The second two are derivatives, with the first derivative referring to various scientific disciplines, and the second referring to a set of knowledge. If you want to see it in a tidier format, just type "science definition" into Google and see what pops up.
Your mistake is that, over and over again, you keep blasting science only in terms of its derivatives, but never for its method. This isn't about me "wanting a description" of anything. I'm telling you what the actual definition is according to a dictionary reference, and how you have consistently failed to recognize that science is first and foremost a method.
And do you know why you don't directly attack science as a method (even though you think you are)? It's because you use the same method, albeit on a much more informal level, every day of your waking life. It's called inductive reasoning. Scientists use it, and you use it albeit on a much more informal level.
You need to learn that science is your friend. Inductive reasoning can't provide you with comprehensive, absolute truths about the Universe, but without it you'd be a vegetable.
