This group is exactly what the name implies. A group for people who are Christians. If you're a Christian then please join us. We're a place on ModDB for Christians to gather and talk. It's as simple as that.

Report article RSS Feed The Bible and Science

An article debunking yet another misconception some people make about The Bible. Science is actually in agreement with The Bible.

Posted by KnightofEquulei on Oct 14th, 2012

This article is just as much for me as it is for proving that The Bible contains scientific facts. Sometimes I forget some of the things that The Bible says or I forget the number of verse so this will prove to be an serviceable resource in the end. Anyway to begin with I shall list some of the scientific facts contained within The Bible proving that it isn't unscientific or irrational:

The Universe Had a Beginning:

Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens (the universe). This is contrary to the claims that some scientists made before it was discovered that galaxies were moving away from each other supporting the idea of an expanding universe which in turn suggested that all matter came from one place which implied a creation event. This evidence backed up Georges Lemaitre's Big Bang theory which states that all matter came from one single point and which also explains what happened after the first few seconds of the beginning of the universe.

Science.nationalgeographic.com

Germ Theory of Disease:

For years scientists came up with different theories concerning how germs were spread. Eventually theories such as the miasma theory were replaced in the 1800's by the Germ Theory of Disease when scientists discovered what The Bible said about germs was right all along and that microorganisms which originated from outside the body were infectious and could cause diseases. Meanwhile The Bible spoke of this all along and told one to follow sanitary practices to avoid diseases and illnesses.

Enotes.com

Numbers 19:3-22, Leviticus 15:1-33

Leprosy is Infectious + Proper Quarantine Methods:

Once it was believed that leprosy was hereditary or a curse. Scientists later discovered in the 1800's that it was infectious and spread by infection which confirmed what The Bible was saying all along about leprosy being infectious. The Bible even gave commands to burn the clothing of a leper so that the disease couldn't spread (a method also applied to other diseases and illnesses). Meanwhile they were told to wash themselves and go into quarantine to prevent the spread of the disease. Also The Bible gave commands to burn anything else that a leper came in contact with because leprosy can spread on surfaces.

Niaid.nih.gov

Niaid.nih.gov

Leviticus 13:45, Leviticus 13:52

Laughter is Medicine:

King David wrote "A joyful heart is good medicine, But a broken spirit dries up the bones" and now science has discovered that laughter is indeed good for your health and well-being as it releases endorphins in your mind.

Helpguide.org

Proverbs 17:22

Expanding Universe:

The expanding universe is evidence for The Big Bang theory and also evidence of creation. The Bible says that the universe is expanding and said so years before astronomers and physicists saw this to be true.

Isaiah 45:12, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Job 9:8

Earth Suspended in Space:

There have been many different concepts of the earth throughout history. One was that the earth was held up by pillars while another was that a turtle/elephant held up the world. Eventually scientists proved that the earth and other planets were indeed suspended in space just as The Bible says.

Job 26:7

Earth is Round + Orbit Around Sun:

The Bible taught that the earth would receive light on one side and darkness on the other clearly teaching that the earth was round and revolved around the sun.

Job 26:10

Life only Comes from Life (Law of Biogenesis):

Many people - scientists included - one believed that life could come from non-life. This theory was known as spontaneous generation (and has re-emerged with a new model called abiogenesis). In 1858, Rudolf Virchow challenged the spontaneous generation theory by proposing the theory of biogenesis. He stated, 'living cells can arise only from pre-existing living cells'. This theory partly explained the presence of animalcule under the microscope. Later Louis Pasteur performed an experiment which showed that life could not come from non-life and that it could only come from pre-existing life which Genesis had said all along.

Buzzle.com

Genesis 1:20, Genesis 1:21, Genesis 1:24, Genesis 1:25

All Human Life Can Trace Ancestry Back to One Woman and Man:

These two people are known as Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam. These are not the Adam and Eve of The Bible from Genesis but their existence and the fact that all humans can trace their ancestry back to them validate claims in The Bible saying that humanity could trace their ancestry back to two people which skeptics previously thought impossible genetically.

Genetic Traces of Jewish Priesthood from The Prophet Aaron:

The Bible claimed that priesthood - starting from Aaron - was passed down from father to son. Genetic discoveries have confirmed that Jewish priests all share distinctive genetic traits once again validating The Bible's claims and proving it to be correct not only scientifically but historically as well. These priests can trace their ancestry back to Aaron.

Nytimes.com

========================

So there you have it folks. The Bible isn't unscientific. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying and has never ever read The Bible. Another misconception some people have is that some of us Christians believe that The Bible is a scientific document. This is untrue, The Bible isn't a scientific document but to deny the advanced scientific facts within it would be to show true ignorance on the subject.

These scientific facts contained within The Bible show that the people who wrote it were rather intelligent as it has only been recently that some of these theories have been confirmed by science while the Bible writers knew the truth all along. Further more, books like the proverbs are still relevant today and show that society has changed little - in terms of human interaction - and provides advice of how to deal with situations and scenarios in society. Proverbs warn of us making friends in the wrong crowds as their manners might rub on us and this is shown to be true even in today's society where people get involved in the wrong crowd and then end up becoming criminals or learning bad behavior.

In conclusion, most of what is written in The Bible is confirmed by science.

Post comment Comments  (0 - 50 of 75)
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 15 2012, 2:52am says:

well, think of it this way, alot of what is in harry potter is true aswell- so if your point is follow the bible cuz it got some things right than by that logic we should be worshipping the holy dumbldore.

just as with harry potter or any other book writers put the knowlegde of the day into there witing but it doesnt make it fact bcause some parts are true.
and Leprosy is not that infectious, it is really hard to spread (my mother is a microbiologist and used to know someone who worked with it) and the biblical quarnitene measures show they dont actually realize this-
and another point, just because they new about infectious disease doesnt have anything to do with god. infection is not hard to understand anyways it doesnt take the word of a god to tell you that if people get sick after being near someone else who is sick than clearly it was passed from oneto the other.
and to your adam and eve post- they were not the adam and eve of the bible
we know this because they were roughly 50,000yrs apart- and eve was first, so unless adam had a time machine it is impossible.
so that actually goes against bible science
Scienceblogs.com
read that and it will explain why it is so.
and the last i will adress right now, yes the preiss are decended from a common ancestor- but there is no way to prove for certain it was the firgure aaron, the only way we could be sure is if they had aarons corpse which they dont so you cannot clain it is aarons for sure- you can only guess, and given the lack of non biblical sources for the who exodus event we as scientists have to doubt the whole affair

0 votes     reply to comment
OminousSpudd
OminousSpudd Oct 15 2012, 4:02am replied:

Lets see were I should begin this, I will just say that Harry Potter is an interesting analogy or though I see the point you are trying to make.

Leprosy, in the OLD TESTAMENT, or lepers were kept separate from other Jews because of what leprosy signified, it was seen as a sign of uncleanliness (nothing whatsoever to do with infection) a disease that they had been stricken with from their own sin. I would like to state again that this is during the days of the Old Covenant. Another reason why the Jewish Elders in the local village were so shocked when Jesus healed the ten lepers that had been cast out of the town in Luke 17:11-19.

Adam and Eve... He wasn't stating that they were the Adam or Eve of the Bible, I would advise a re-read.

Aaron, the point is that Jewish priests have been genetically traced back to a single source, validating the Bible's claim of all Jewish priests being blood related to a single man. And since science does not know for sure who this single source may be they might just have to take a leap of faith and call him Aaron.

+5 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 15 2012, 9:52am replied:

1. Everything in Harry Potter is untrue. The magic is fake, the characters are fake, most of the locations are fake and the events are fake so your argument makes no sense really.
2. Then your mother couldn't have been a very good microbiologist if she said that leprosy isn't infectious or are you saying that based on your lack of medical knowledge? Please read the medical site linked to in the article which tells you all you need to know about leprosy and how it was infectious.
3. I never said that infection had anything to do with God. In fact this whole article was simply to debunk claims that you critics of The Bible usually make when you call The Bible unscientific. As this article proves - with the sources within - The Bible is actually scientifically correct on many matters. Oh and if The Germ Theory of Disease was common sense then why did it take scientists thousands of years to discover it?
4. I never said it was Adam and Eve. Re-read the article I wrote.
5. Actually there are extra-biblical accounts for Exodus and as ~IV-ǝuɐB-snɹnןɐT~ explained, the genetic evidence confirms what The Bible says about priests being descended from one person which is a claim first made in The Bible and then passed down from oral tradition all saying that the original priest was Aaron and now science has confirmed this. You're not a scientist so you can't say otherwise especially when the evidence is against you.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 15 2012, 10:01am replied:

1. Everything in Harry Potter is untrue. The magic is fake, the characters are fake, most of the locations are fake and the events are fake so your argument makes no sense really.
2. Then your mother couldn't have been a very good microbiologist if she said that leprosy isn't infectious or are you saying that based on your lack of medical knowledge? Please read the medical site linked to in the article which tells you all you need to know about leprosy and how it was infectious.
3. I never said that infection had anything to do with God. In fact this whole article was simply to debunk claims that you critics of The Bible usually make when you call The Bible unscientific. As this article proves - with the sources within - The Bible is actually scientifically correct on many matters. Oh and if The Germ Theory of Disease was common sense then why did it take scientists thousands of years to discover it?
4. I never said it was Adam and Eve. Re-read what I wrote.
5. Actually there are extra-biblical accounts for Exodus and as ~IV-ǝuɐB-snɹnןɐT~ explained, the genetic evidence confirms what The Bible says about priests being descended from one person which is a claim first made in The Bible and also passed down from oral tradition all saying that the original priest was Aaron and now science has confirmed this. You're not a scientist so you can't say otherwise especially when the evidence is against you.

+4 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 15 2012, 2:28pm replied:

firstly you are right magic isnt real, so that hurts the bible
second harry potter is a good example because it does have real places aka london but lots of made up stuff just like bible.
I said it isnt highly infectious- leprosy is hard to get.

and the bible has nothing about germs, i said people understood it was spread not that germs were involved.
and yes preist may be decended from one person but unless you have a body we can test for DNA you cant prove it was aaron for sure- it might have been but we cannot truely know.
and finally i will not tolerate any more insults from you.
I can allow you to insult me, but i draw the line at my mother- i will not tolerate you being a jackass anymore
and yes I am a evolutionary biology and psch major working for a PHD.
I was giving you constructive critisisum and being polite- but clearly all you can be is an ***
I suggest you grow up

+1 vote     reply to comment
Yuribeard7
Yuribeard7 Oct 15 2012, 4:32pm replied:

He said the magic in Harry Potter is fake. The real thing is something you do not want to get involved in nor do you want to be on the receiving end. Ever heard of voodoo? Its a form of witchcraft still practiced in many parts of Africa. There is no "good magic" or "good witchcraft" etc. Its all of Satan. I know a guy who tried to use witchcraft outlined in the Satanic bible to kill his own dad. He misapplied it and only injured him. The point is that its very real, very dangerous, and very evil. (this guy I speak of never did it again afterwards)

+2 votes     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Oct 16 2012, 12:15am replied:

Ah, the age-old debate on witchcraft is around again.

The first question is: What is magic?

Magic is believed to be to the supply of energy or intelligence from some spiritual entity through physical or mental actions.

In that case, you might wonder: What's the difference between witches and the early Apostles? Both of them had amazing power, yet the former of these groups is completely shunned by the Bible. Why?

It depends largely on where the source of power comes from. The Apostles drew their power from the strength God had given them, and they used their "magic" to glorify God and spread his word. A witch might have even have similar motives, but what completely changes the nature of the practice is that nearly all forms witchcraft relies on the power of Satan, or other deities which can be traced back to Celtic, Canannite, and Egyptian deities. Witchcraft is a very real thing, and when the user does not draw his power from God, there are bound to be negative repercussions. The type of magic that the Bible speaks against is the spiritual power which does not originate from God.

The Bible gives an interesting look at this in the book of 1 John.

Quote: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.


+3 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 24 2012, 12:07am replied:

Witchkraft is actually science, even if those people think its magic. Psychology, chemestry and physics werent/arent well understood by those people but they can use it. Its like using a radio without knowing how it actually works, but somehow it works.

If someone would use voodoo on me, it wouldnt work, even the most powerful voodoo king in the world could curse me, it wouldnt have any effect on me, unless he intoxicates me somehow with chemical substances that effects my nervous system (quicksilver, alcohol, hydrocyanid acid to just name some most extreme chemicals). But cursing me from distance wouldnt affect me in any way. You can try it, but it wont work, you can take it to the bank. ;)

-1 votes     reply to comment
Quagrunner
Quagrunner Jul 13 2013, 12:33pm replied:

Give me one place where the Bible is inaccurate. Have you even read it (I mean the whole thing)?

+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 17 2012, 4:16pm replied:

@Deer_Hunter

1: The Bible hasn't anything to do with magic.
2: Harry Potter has ONE real place. The Bible has many real events, people, places and scenarios which have all been proved to have happened via archaeological evidence. So your point is still wrong.
3: Your point still holds zero bearing and it isn't hard to get.
4: The Bible does indeed mention germs as the verse I posted in the article shows.
5: We can truly know that it was Aaron because both Jewish tradition and The Bible state this and now genetic DNA has shown this oral tradition to be true validating The Bible's claim that priesthood is passed down from father to son starting from Aaron.
6: I never insulted your mother, you're the only one being a jackass here.
7: I doubt that as you have a lack of understanding about what science is.
8: You wasn't giving any constructive criticism. The debate group is for debates. You are just holding a grudge against me after I debunked your atheism and feel the need to attack everything I post.

I suggest you take your own advice and grow up.

In conclusion:

You have failed to debunk any of the facts stated in the article and therefore my point is proven. The Bible does indeed contain scientific facts and isn't unscientific as you claim it to be. Everything else you have to say is irrelevant to this debate, if you think you can prove the atheist theory then please take it to the atheism forum with The Debating Society.

Cheers.

0 votes     reply to comment
LensFlare
LensFlare Jul 13 2013, 12:27pm replied:

Oh, Harry Potter?! Brilliant example! I can see such a similarity with Quidditch and the Ten Commandments. Great argument! (P.S. Sarcasm intended.)

+1 vote     reply to comment
cronos35
cronos35 Oct 15 2012, 4:38am says:

this is a very convenient composition. i never thought the bible and science could coincide given the philosophical beliefs of the bible. Thanks for proving me wrong.

+6 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 15 2012, 10:06am replied:

Glad to be of assistance there. This resource is for Christians just as much as it is for critics of The Bible.

+4 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Oct 15 2012, 11:47am says:

Brilliant. I am glad you still have the persistence ECCLESIA, because I kinda gave up on trying to reason with fundy atheists. Live and let live as they say :/ ( to those who think I am saying kill atheists, I am not) just to cler that up so no one has wrong impression

+3 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 17 2012, 4:22pm replied:

I'm hardly going to let them claim "victory" in the Christian group am I? This article was meant for Christians who had no idea about these scientific facts so they can mention them the next time someone lies by saying that The Bible is unscientific (and it isn't just atheists that say this).

+1 vote     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 19 2012, 9:28am replied:

i know what eccelisa we cant claim the bible is unscientific

but niether can we claim harry potter or spiderman or any other fantisy unscientific because all fantusy carries some truth and science.
the bible is the same

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 20 2012, 7:38am replied:

Nope. Harry Potter has no facts. Spiderman has no facts and neither does Dungeons and Dragons. Unless you've come across proof that those things are based on real events or really did happen? No? Didn't think so.

-1 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 23 2012, 11:55pm replied:

Spiderman is based on genetics and spider web material is stronger than steel, so its scientifically true and proven. I dont know about Harry Potter and D&D, but for those 2 I couldnt care less.

I could tell you the same or something similar about Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Godzilla and so on... But I hope you see where it leads us to. :-/

-1 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 24 2012, 6:15am replied:

Spiderman can't be based on truth or don't you think scientists would have made us a spiderman by now who goes out there fighting crime? Or why aren't there any of these genetically enhanced soldiers fighting out there?

So no it's not based on anything truthful. It's based on sci-fiction and sci-fiction (regardless of what you think) isn't based on what is truth.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 24 2012, 7:13am replied:

Because the subject is much more complex than movies and comic try to tell us? Does the Bible explains us E=MC²? Does it tells us how quantum gravity works? Does the Bible tell us what gravity is and how it works? Just because we dont have "super soldiers" right now doesnt mean that it is impossible. Just because we dont have a super hero doesnt mean, that it would be impossible to create one. Wait a couple of decades and you might change your mind on that. ;)

Science fiction isnt based on truth? So what were Leonardo Da Vinci's aircrafts, ships ect? Or Jules Verne's science fiction romans? Actually we traveled to the moon and back several times. Science fiction inspires scientists. It always did and will always do. We already can build cyborgs or do genitc changes. It is based on truth, more than you can imagine. ;)

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 27 2012, 11:15am replied:

I'm sorry but it's not. Time-travel, genetic enhancement which makes people into literal gods (Too Human), ability to defy the laws of nature and science and the technology to travel to one end of the universe to the other in a blind of an eye is science-fiction and also impossible.

There are limits to what a human can build. Does it matter if The Bible doesn't tell us about about what E-MC2, quantum physics and gravity are? It discussed other scientific facts which really debunks the original argument from the atheist that The Bible is unscientific. I have proved that it's not. You're now trying to make something out of nothing (pun intended).

Leonardo Da Vinci's blueprints were not science-fiction and he actually thought they would work and intended to build them. When scientists built the robot he had planned it actually worked.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 27 2012, 12:46pm replied:
Quote:I'm sorry but it's not. Time-travel, genetic enhancement which makes people into literal gods (Too Human), ability to defy the laws of nature and science and the technology to travel to one end of the universe to the other in a blind of an eye is science-fiction and also impossible.

You do realize that this is a straw man you are setting up? I never said something about time-travel, while its possible, only in one direction at least, but possible. And by traveling through the universe, you probably mean wormholes. They exist at quantum level, you only must find a way to expend or send data through them. Then even such travels through time and space would be possible.

Genetic enhancements to super human level (not godlike) is a matter of understanding how to do. In SciFi its quite simple, like a second nature, but in reality it takes more and long steps. Think of how the first robots were only SciFi back in the early 20th centuray. And now? Damn, you can buy simple robots like toys and robotic engineers can build limb-replacements for those who lost a hand or leg, even an eye is technically possible today. Those were once science fiction. It was not possible back then, but it is now. Thats what Im talking about.

Science fiction is something that could be technically possible. It is mainly used for entertaining of course, but it gives us some visions. Thats why Im also a SciFi Author of a TC, I have visions of how the future could look like and Im refering to several scientific ideas like the string theory, genetic enhancements, terraforming, robotic, astronautic and so on.

Defying the laws of nature and science is the part where the real fiction begins. Those can be ignored in this debate since its not really relevant.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Nov 23 2012, 12:47pm replied:

Wait so time-travel is possible but only in one direction? First you accuse me of setting up a straw-man and then you admit to believing in time-travel (as I suspected). You are aware there's no evidence for time-travel right? It's considered sci-fi just like transporting through wormholes is.

The robots you refer to were never considered sci-fi but intelligent robots which could talk and think for themselves were and still till this today we have not created such robots. Augmentations (Deus Ex) still aren't possible. Attachments have been added to humans that function by themselves (like a robotic arm that can hold objects and release them) but whoever is wearing them cannot control them. One day scientists will likely create robots that can think for themselves in some capacity and obviously robotic technology can be used on humans but all things like time-travel are considered sci-fi because they defy science and the laws.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 23 2012, 9:19pm replied:
Quote:You are aware there's no evidence for time-travel right? It's considered sci-fi just like transporting through wormholes is.

There is evidence for one-directional time travel. There was an experiment with atomic clocks on planes which flew in opposite directions (I think you should know about it). Einsteins equasion E=MC² is evidence for it. Well, there is a limit of how much time you can travel into the future, but you cannot turn back.

And about wormholes? Well, lets see what is possible. As I said, we are far away from knowing everything. Maybe there is a way.

Quote:The robots you refer to were never considered sci-fi but intelligent robots which could talk and think for themselves were and still till this today we have not created such robots.

It is the way our present technology is pointing too. Intelligence is basicly like C++, it only depends on how well it is programmed and how many space for data and variables is available. AI was always a difficult task, but we are able to advance. If there is a possibility for us to exist, then living robots can be created as well. Especially if you believe that we have a creator. ;)

And besides: there are no straw men set by me.

0 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 27 2012, 12:47pm replied:
Quote:There are limits to what a human can build.

True, but we didnt reached those limits yet. We are not even close to our pentential limits and those limits can expand within the boundaries of natural laws.

Quote:Does it matter if The Bible doesn't tell us about about what E-MC2, quantum physics and gravity are?

It does matter since creationists use it as scientific literature. All "scientific facts" that the Bible teaches are debunked or far more expanded. It teaches nothing more than the people of that time before knew, it wasnt a divine school book for science class. And thats the core of our (atheists) argument.

0 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Nov 23 2012, 12:48pm replied:

Creationists do not use The Bible as scientific literature and if there are any who do then it's only a few because every Christian views The Bible simply as a collection of books written by prophets inspired by God so naturally they would contain scientific facts as I've shown. That's what this article was about.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 24 2012, 2:07am replied:

Ehm, creationism is based on scripture. Otherwise creationism wouldnt exist at all, it is inspired by the thought that everything has been created by God or gods. And young-earth-creationists like Elf do take the Bible as scientific source and try to justify it by building a wall of pseudoscience around it.

0 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Feb 9 2013, 12:02pm replied:

Your mistake is placing us all in the same boat because a few creationists use the scripture as scientific literature. ElfFriend is a Young Earth Creationist and he believes the scripture supports this view (even though most Christians don't) but when he's spoken of biology and DNA, he's getting that information from science sites and sources.

I don't see what one Christian has got to do with the proven facts in this article.

+1 vote     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Oct 15 2012, 12:42pm says:

'Tis good to see there are still rational people in this world. Once again, you've compiled a fine argument!


+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 20 2012, 7:23am says:

@Deer_Hunter

Don't delete my comment again. This group supports free-speech.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 21 2012, 9:59am says:

@Deer

Then I'm removing the article from your little group so you cannot suppress free speech. Never again will I be posting in that group because you've proven you can't handle the truth.

Now that the article is removed from your group you cannot no longer delete the things you disagree with.

Good day.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 22 2012, 10:36pm replied:

so you deleted my explaination nice...

o well no hard feelings now thats its off my group i no longer care that you follow the groups civility rules.

cheers
Deer_hunter

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 24 2012, 6:16am replied:

Your explanation wasn't really an explanation and you can't really complain considering you were content with deleting the whole thread.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 23 2012, 11:51pm says:

Just cherry picked examples and some interpretations...

"All Human Life Can Trace Ancestry Back to One Woman and Man"

Mankind can be traced down to 2 individuals which DID NOT lived at the same time and werent the only humans around, unfortunately. So the biblical claim is garbage on that point.

"Earth is Round + Orbit Around Sun"

Had been found out by Plato (if Im not mistaken) several hundreds of yours before Jesus ever lived. I know it was a Greek, not sure who it was exactly. Blame me for being lazy to do further research. And also the Bible stated that the earth was a flat plate, carried by pillars and that the sun moves around the earth.

"Expanding Universe"

Before the astronoms in the 20th centurary found that out, it was the thought that our galaxy, the milkyway, was the only thing in the universe. It was a groundbreaking discovery by modern technology that gave the possibility to discover that.

Overall, the bible doesnt contain more scientific knowledge than the people of that time had.

0 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 24 2012, 6:24am replied:

1: I never said that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam were the Adam or the Eve of The Bible and therefore you are cherry-picking here and making a straw-man argument. Genetically they show that mankind *can* have the same two ancestors which validates The Bible's claims on the ancestry of humans.

2: I couldn't care if the ancient Greeks discovered this years after Job or years before as that's irrelevant and no, The Bible doesn't say that the earth is a flat plate carried by pillars with the sun moving around the earth hence why you can't provide a verse and any verse you do provide would likely by any metaphorical one from The Revelation or the visions of Isaiah or Ezekiel. Since you clearly didn't read Job 26:10 here's what it says:

"He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness."

Clearly this teaches that the Earth is spherical.

Proverbs 8:29 says "when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth."

This refers to the foundations (plates) of the earth/land and not the planet Earth. You can even tell this by the narrative of this verse (which is all one sentence too) with sea being mentioned first. Clearly the foundations refers to the plates otherwise you wouldn't have them mentioned in books even after Job (Job 26:7) which said the Earth was suspended in space upon nothing.

3. Thought by who? Well The Bible was teaching that long ago.

Overall, The Bible does contain more scientific knowledge than people had at that time hence why you could only answer three of them which you couldn't even debunk with sources.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 24 2012, 7:04am replied:

1. You didnt read/understand my argument, so how can it be a straw man if you didnt understand it in the first place? I said that your claim is invalid and why. As far as I understood your argument, it would be possible to track mankind back to 2 individuals who lived in the same time, regardless if you mean Adam and Eve or not. And this claim is not scientific, you and other creationists interpreted the "Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam" thing into it. So where is the evidence that it was scientific knowledge back then and not just a story?

2.1 It doesnt say that the earth is spherical.
2.2 "...foundations of the earth."... The plates are not the foundation of the earth, they are the surface/crust.

3. Scientists?! O_o

Your last part is a straw-man claim. Just to point out so you know how a straw-man argument looks like. Just because I cherry picked 3 which I could answer without further effort doesnt mean that I couldnt debunk the rest. Im just lazy, thats all.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 24 2012, 11:24am replied:

Well, I found something interesting, read it and just wanted to add this to 2.)
Crivoice.org

And a video that lead me to that:
Youtube.com

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 27 2012, 11:20am replied:

1. I did read your first comment and I explained why it was absolute garbage. You created a straw-man argument attacking a point I had never made and therefore your argument automatically failed.

"As far as I understood your argument, it would be possible to track mankind back to 2 individuals who lived in the same time."

Nope and this was the straw-man argument of yours that I was referring to. Never once did I mention "same time" and never said that they were *the* Adam and Eve either.

2.1 It does indeed. Read the verse and the narrative.
2.2 The plates move the earth. You can call the layers the foundation or the plates, regardless it matters little to me for The Bible was referring to one or the other as I proved with the narrative.

3. Then The Bible spoke of the expanding universe before them as did the Quran and other religious books that you atheists dismiss as "unscientific."

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 7 2012, 2:14am replied:

1. To say "As far as I understood..." is something way different then a straw-man argument. It simply mean, "thats my argument, but correct me if Im wrong". You mentioned that the "Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam" would prove the Bible right, so I guess that you also meant that those 2 humans would had live in the same time. If not, then this argument is pointless and pure speculation.

2.1 Ok, which version of the Bible? I think the source I linked to moderate christians is quite accurate enough. You on the other hand linked below to an apologists site, which are closer to creationists, as I noticed so far.
2.2 "The plates move the earth"? The plates are not moving the earth, the magma underneath the plates are moving them. And the earth itself moves because of some other forces, but the planet itself has really little to say on its path around the sun.

3. And? It holds no evidence, thats the point, it doesnt explain why and how. On that I could also just claim that alternative dimensions are true and maybe in some future it will be turned out to be right or wrong. The fact is that the universe was never more then our galaxy back then, if the people thought we would live in a galaxy at all.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 27 2012, 11:46am replied:

I wasn't even referring to Isaiah 40:22. In fact nothing in this article even mentions that book. The verse in question is Job 26:10 which you have refused to answer. Your article made the claim that The Bible teaches that the earth is held up by pillars, is flat and has a foundation but how can this be so when The Bible said the earth was suspended in space upon nothing (Job 26:7)? Therefore one must conclude that these verses that come after mentioning foundations are either metaphorical or refer to the layers/plates of the earth considering Job says the earth is suspended in space upon nothing.

Job 26:10 says that day and night occur at the same time which is impossible on a flat earth which is at the center of the universe with the sun directly above it which is what you atheists say that The Bible teaches. Clearly The Bible doesn't teach that based on Job 26:10. Flat earth cosmology also taught that the sun goes into the sea or below the earth so how can The Bible be supporting this cosmology when it says day and night occur at the same time on the earth?

Here's something for you to read refuting all the points on that site:

Tektonics.org

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 7 2012, 2:00am replied:

Dude, read the article again. It also gets down to Job 26:10. And never, NEVER!, use the word atheist out of context ever again, since its basically a breach of the 9th commandment to do so.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Nov 12 2012, 10:22am replied:

No it doesn't. It mentions the horizon part but not the part I was speaking about in my article above.

And no, I'm not lying about what the atheists say, you're saying The Bible teaches a flat earth so my point is proven.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 12 2012, 11:41am replied:
KnightofEcclesia wrote:what atheists say

... is identical with the christian site I linked above. When I said in the debating forum that theists and atheists stand up against your arguments, I really meant it. Let me quote it for ya:

Quote:Job 26:10 He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness. [NRSV]

Quote:People of the Ancient Near East, as well as ancient Hebrews and Israelites, conceptualized the world as a large, flat, circular disk anchored in water below (the deep, Prov 8:27, Gen 1:2, 49:25, etc.) by pillars or foundations (1 Sam 2:8, Prov 8:29, etc.). Between the earth and this deep was Sheol, the place of the dead. -2- The earth was covered by a "firmament," conceived as a large solid upside down bowl or "dome" (Job 22:14, 37:18), in which the stars were placed (Gen 1:14-20). Above the dome was also water, which was the source of rain.

And further more:

KnightofEcclesia wrote:Job 26:10 says that day and night occur at the same time which is impossible on a flat earth which is at the center of the universe with the sun directly above it

Thats the conclusion you have with the knowledge of today, but back than when the people didnt know it, for them the sky was a dome and that there was a border between light and darkness, or day and night, which there is not.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Nov 14 2012, 7:18pm replied:

You linked me to one site from one Christian and suddenly the whole of Christendom is against me despite all of the members of this group agreeing with what I have wrote in this article.

If one Christian is enough to debunk me then one evolutionist should be enough to debunk you:

Rkbentley.blogspot.co.uk

"Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of."

Yup, that's the leader of the flat earth society and he's an evolutionist and thus according to your logic, evolutionists all believe in a flat earth. Unfortunately the FLS updated their wiki so I can't direct you to the other part where they say there are many atheists part of their society but at least I still have this one to debunk your flawed logic with.

Your site mentioned the same things as you: pillars and foundations and I already provided the verses explaining how they can't possibly be literal pillars considering The Bible says the earth is suspended in space but continue ignoring the facts and narrative if it pleases you.

Job 26:7 ~ "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

I believe Job also mentions the "foundations of the earth" and by the verse above we can conclude that the verse mentioning foundations is referring to the layers/plates of the earth and not to pillars holding up the world.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 14 2012, 11:11pm replied:

Well, correct me if Im wrong, but I never called a creationist a flat-earther or whatever those people are called, unless you would call the earth flat (which you didnt afaik). And no, according to my logic not all theists/christians are dumb or creationists or both, not all atheists are smart and not all flat earthers are theist or just christians and some even accept evolution. When I say "atheists say/claim/ect", I speak out what the majority of atheists I meat said. And it is true, some believe in a flat earth or even creation, but thats the minority. So my logic has nothing to debunk, it is rather an issue of missunderstanding.

Most christians in Europe for example accept the theory of evolution - you cannot believe in evolution, its a scientific theory not a belief-system, you either know & accept it as scientific truth, or you dont.
And it is a fact that you have atheists and theists against your points of view, not just one or all. I dont know how many, but I do know there are plenty of them.

Job is mainly guessing, if you are correct, not knowing or scientific researching. I dont blame the author(s) of Job, he/they didnt had the technology to know better. The theory of plate tectonics was not "born" at his/their time, everything those people had was speculations, no real evidence. But it clearly seems to me, that there is no mention of a spherical earth in Job, nor a mention to plate tectonics.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Nov 15 2012, 10:09am replied:

No but you said that most theists here agree that The Bible teaches about a flat earth. No, you're wrong and if you Googled it you'll find plenty of Christian sites speaking against the one site you found. I mean the fact that all the Christians here agreed with this article I wrote speaks for itself too.

It's my understanding that at least 40% of the world don't accept evolution and you can't "know" evolution is a truth unless you've seen it and no one has. Sure you can argue it has great evidence confirming it but that's based on your interpretation of what DNA says, in fact it's the "DNA similarities" that's mainly used as evidence when in my view it simply supports intelligent design instead. Transitional fossils on the other hand don't exist. Sure you can dig me out a few incomplete fossils of an extinct feathered dinosaur but you can't give me fossils showing a species turning into another so until that day comes I have no reason to consider evolution "truth" and this hasn't nothing to do with Biblical Literalism.

Job is guessing? Then so were the ancient teachers of Israel in the book of Proverbs that you quoted from that site to support your view. That site also quotes from Samuel to support its view and thus I can say that Samuel was only guessing too. The truth of the matter however is that Job likely was well taught and knew that the world was round and suspended in space. The first matter being known to the ancient Greeks and the second matter being known to all astronomers who had looked at other planets and therefore learned that everything - including the earth - was suspended in space.

Based on this verse your interpretation is wrong. I could easily dig up a dozen Greek texts speaking about the foundations of the earth but they wouldn't be referring to the earth being held up.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 15 2012, 12:33pm replied:

About evolution:
How many of those 40% understand evolution at all? If this stat includes Africans, Indians, Arabs/Muslims and poor people in China, than we have the answer. I dont include the population of western world, 'cause thats a fart compared to the regions above. In other word: parts of the world where education is heavily lacking.

DNA can ONLY support evolution, intelligent design fails to explain what we see in the DNA or have to misrepresent those facts. ID is a biblical thing, packed as pseudoscience, so dont tell me something about "this hasn't nothing to do with Biblical Literalism" - well, I just see you used a double negative, what would mean that it has, but I guess it was just a mistake, so I hope I took it right. There is no evidence supporting ID, that has nothing to do with interpretation of facts, since multiple ways of interpretation led to only the same conclusion.

Quote:you can't give me fossils showing a species turning into another

I can and I did several times in the old thread of evolution vs ID. The only problem is on your side. You dont accept the details those fossiles present - and that is a heavy flawed way of thinking.

Evolution has holes, but thats only natural for a scientific theory. If you dig out a fossile or find another evidence for evolution, you have filled one gap, but created 2 new. Thats how science is. But ID on the other hand is a huge hole/gap, thats simply a fact and even creation scientists cant deny micro evolution, which is a major core of evolution at all.

About the Bible is scientific:
Im tired discussing about this, I just leave this case open.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Nov 17 2012, 6:30pm replied:

Well I find it funny how you don't wish to include the western world because latest research has found that science teachers don't even believe in it or doubt it:

Live.psu.edu

Seems it's the same elsewhere too for the percentage to be as big as 40%. Concerning DNA: Your claim on DNA is absolute garbage and I could easily apply it the other way around and say "DNA can ONLY support design." Also it seems you don't even know what Intelligent Design is to dub it a "Biblical thing" as there are non-Christians who support it.

Intelligent Design simply proposes that we were all created and designed (as the complex code of DNA really shows) and the opposite theory has no grounding as abiogenesis still remains a hypothesis and generally a myth among most hence why most of the world still say "God/a god/gods exist" and not "we arose from nothing" which remains evidenceless, unobserved and impracticable.

Concerning transitional fossils: And didn't I just explain what those fossils were? You gave me fossils that *you* believed to be evidence of evolution but anyone who isn't a religious follower of evolution could easily see that they aren't evidence. There is not a single chain of fossils showing the evolutionary progression of any species and therefore in my eyes, evolution remains nothing more than a hypothesis.

I know how science works but all scientific theories eventually get filled out almost if not completely but evolution presents one with hundreds of unanswered questions and more holes than swiss cheese. It's at that point that you really should start doubting evolution and accept that speciation is something entirely different. Species don't evolve into other species and this has never been observed and has no fossil evidence. DNA similarity in structure only proves we had a common designer, nothing more.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 18 2012, 7:55am replied:

"DNA"

You should read more about modern genetics, but I doubt that it will convince convince a narrow minded person... To make it short: the things we see in every lifes DNA on earth cannot be implied to ID.

"ID is not biblical"

Debunked: En.wikipedia.org

"evolution remains nothing more than a hypothesis"

Evolution is the strongest theory in science, means it has a higher amount of evidence than any other theory. Its the complete opposite of creationism aka ID which has no evidence at all. So your argument is wrong. Garbage. Dont bring it up again.

"40% deny evolution"

Yeah, America is basicly stone age on many levels, so what gives? Doesnt contradict me that much.

"Science"

Scientific theories are filled out with hypothesis and math, especially in physics. Leading astro physicists say that, not me, I just repeat their words. Evolution follows the same laws of physics btw, that also counts as evidence for evolution. ID on the ohter hand breaks the laws of thermodynamics, nothing can be created out of nowhere not even the universe.

The dilemma of science is, if you have one hole and find an evidence, you now have 2 holes. You find another mosaic piece and you have 3 holes if not more. The same problem is evolution facing, it has so many holes, that it is a fact - what irony, dont you think? Modern genetics / DNA made those many holes. ID on the other hand has no holes, because its not a scientifc theory at all. It basicly says "God(s) did it!"

"DNA similarity in structure only proves we had a common designer, nothing more."

A pretty bad one. He could at least complete his work.

+1 vote     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Nov 20 2012, 2:58am replied:
DetoNato wrote: The same problem is evolution facing, it has so many holes, that it is a fact - what irony, dont you think?

What exactly are you smoking?

+1 vote     reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Established
Feb 6, 2011
Privacy
Public
Subscription
Open to all members
Contact
Send Message
Email
Members Only
Membership
Join this group
Group Watch
Track this group
News
Browse
News
Report Abuse
Report article
Related Groups
Christians of Moddb
Christians of Moddb Hobbies & Interests group with 212 members