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  (50 - 75 of 75)
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 20 2012, 11:42am replied: Online

I dont smoke anything and its not me who smoked something. O_o

Replace holes with evidence, just as I implied above, and you have it translated to a common understanding. Ecclesia often said that he denies evolution because of its holes (and not-existing flaws, which was a strawman of him btw), I just explained why it has so many holes/gaps. This holes argument from creationists is basicly a strawman as well, they ignore the facts that those many holes and gaps are caused by a equal quantity of evidence.

And @ Ecclesia:
If you dont think evolution is true, than fine. But dont spread false information or act as if the amount of denier would be any credibility against the amount of biology scientists - 95% - 99.9% of several millions of biology scientists accept evolution as true and thats what really has weight behind it.

+1 vote     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Nov 20 2012, 9:06pm replied:

A few odd holes can be expected in almost theory, but the holes are almost always nothing more than little quirks. Evolution on the other hand, has THOUSANDS of holes that are too big to explain. I don't have the time too go into even a fraction of them, but let's take at some holes in the geological column for now:

If the geological column is correct, how come animals are often found in in underlying and the same strata as those of their "ancestors"?

If the geological column is correct, how come it's order is often mismatched, or completely inverted, even the though the strata is obviously undisturbed?

Don't you think it's somewhat odd that the layout the of the geological column was plotted out LONG before any method of rock dating was invented?

If the geological column is correct, then there should be no such thing as polystrate fossils, or fossils that are lodged between two layers. Are we really supposed to believe that the animal lay half-buried for millions of years and didn't rot?

Human tracks have been found besides and below the tracks of their supposed ancestors, casting further shadow on the geological column's credibility.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 20 2012, 10:11pm replied: Online
Quote:If the geological column is correct, how come animals are often found in in underlying and the same strata as those of their "ancestors"?

Geological strata is a different process than evolution...

Quote:If the geological column is correct, how come it's order is often mismatched, or completely inverted, even the though the strata is obviously undisturbed?

..., but we never found even one fossil in the wrong strata. We never found dinosaur fossils above the geological area which started 65 million years ago and we never found a mammal fossil in the strata that indicates geological collum of 250 mil years BC, even dinosaurs were not there - well, Im not sure about the dinos, but about the mammals.

Quote:Don't you think it's somewhat odd that the layout the of the geological column was plotted out LONG before any method of rock dating was invented?

No, I dont. Look at the Grand Canyon, or other places like this where you can see the geological layout. Its just observation. Before the dating methodes were invented, the earth was guessed up to a few hundreds of millions of years by the majority of scientists.

Quote:Human tracks have been found besides and below the tracks of their supposed ancestors, casting further shadow on the geological column's credibility.

Ever heared about erosion? Its the same thing that explains how the human footprint got next to a dino ones - a famous argument of creationists that was debunked long ago.

+1 vote     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Nov 21 2012, 1:20am replied:
DetoNato wrote: ..., but we never found even one fossil in the wrong strata. We never found dinosaur fossils above the geological area which started 65 million years ago and we never found a mammal fossil in the strata that indicates geological collum of 250 mil years BC, even dinosaurs were not there - well, Im not sure about the dinos, but about the mammals.

Ever heard of Archaopteryx? Eohippus? Pliohippus? Lystrosaurus? Or the Australopithecines? These were all found in incorrect strata. They are hundreds of fossil types that have been found in the wrong order according the geological column. Attempting to deny the evidence is either intellectually dishonest, or just a sign of ignorance.

DetoNato wrote: No, I dont. Look at the Grand Canyon, or other places like this where you can see the geological layout. Its just observation. Before the dating methodes were invented, the earth was guessed up to a few hundreds of millions of years by the majority of scientists.

continued in next post....

+1 vote     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Nov 21 2012, 1:22am replied:

The inconvenient fact remains that the earth's composition is NOT uniform in every area. The rates of erosion and weathering can vary greatly. A single rainstorm can, on occasions, deposit 5 feet of dirt in a one area, while that same rainstorm might only deposit a few inches of dirt in another area. Each layer of the geological column is supposed to represent a certain amount of years, yet the very notion that the earth's rate of erosion and natural weathering is uniform can be easily disproved.

DetoNato wrote: Ever heared about erosion? Its the same thing that explains how the human footprint got next to a dino ones - a famous argument of creationists that was debunked long ago.

Please tell me you're not referring to the overthrust theory, which was debunked years ago. The funny thing about about erosion is that it *actually* follows accordingly with the laws of gravity. That means that when dirt begins to erode off a mountainside, it will fall apart, and not stick together like the overthrust theory suggests. Instead of staying intact and sliding cozily underneath existing rock, it will break apart, just like the theory of evolution when it's subjected to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 21 2012, 2:53am replied: Online
Quote:Ever heard of Archaopteryx? Eohippus? Pliohippus? Lystrosaurus? Or the Australopithecines? These were all found in incorrect strata. They are hundreds of fossil types that have been found in the wrong order according the geological column. Attempting to deny the evidence is either intellectually dishonest, or just a sign of ignorance.

No, I never heard or read about it - and it has nothing to do with ignorance. Not even once in days of video time I watched and textes on evolution I read. I never heard that from experts on evolution and paleontology either. Not a single one fossil was found in the wrong sediment layer, thats what they say. But go ahead, post your source since I find nothing on YT.

Quote:The inconvenient fact remains that the earth's composition is NOT uniform in every area. The rates of erosion and weathering can vary greatly. A single rainstorm can, on occasions, deposit 5 feet of dirt in a one area, while that same rainstorm might only deposit a few inches of dirt in another area. Each layer of the geological column is supposed to represent a certain amount of years, yet the very notion that the earth's rate of erosion and natural weathering is uniform can be easily disproved.

I didnt claim otherwise, did I?

+1 vote     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Nov 21 2012, 10:58am replied:

I'll list some of my sources here, but I suggest you buy a book called "The Evolution Handbook". It explores in-depth the holes in the evolutionary theory, and brings to light things that some modern scientists don't even know. There are hundreds of articles by professors and scientists who admit the holes in evolution. Interestingly, most of them aren't creationists, just people who are disillusioned with the fruitlessness of their work.

Truth be told, I don't believe there's a whole lot in the Bible that rules out the theory of evolution. What just gets me raving mad is when people try to make something unquestionable, and unfortunately, that's the way many people react when you try to show them some of evolution's holes. I react the same way when fundamentalist Christians try to make their doctrines and beliefs unquestionable. They react with the same rage and emotional explosion that frequently accompanies so many radical evolutionists when you question their beliefs. Fortunately, most atheists here, especially you and Mr. Walrus, have refrained from acting in such a manner, and for that I am very grateful.

Anyways, here's a couple of my sources:

Richard Bliss, "Origins: Creation or Evolution?"
J. Cherfas. "New Scientist"
Harold G. Coffin, "Creation: Accident or Design?"
Garret Hardin, "Nature and Man's Fate"
L.D. Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma"
Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe"
G.A Kerkut, "Implications of Evolution"
Charles Desperet, "Transformations of the Animal World"

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 21 2012, 9:05pm replied: Online

Well, maybe its a missunderstanding, but evolution cannot be a belief like a religion. Thats major point 1 why we are "raging". I wouldnt call my emotional state as raging, it would look much more brutal.

I dont question my the theory? Thats wrong. I always do and I listen to experts and arguments to update my knowledge. I know quite well that the theory has gaps and will never close some of them, but the turth is that it has overwhelming evidence on its side and ignoring that to push our own beliefs is wrong. Our beliefs should not affect this knowledge.

It makes me mad if I see people pointing to some points of evolution, maybe a hole, maybe a fraud (which are extremly rare exceptions) or just completly disturb the theory and use those points to say "its all ********" and therefore their alternative (mostly creationism) is claimed to be the absolut right choise.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 21 2012, 2:54am replied: Online
Quote:Please tell me you're not referring to the overthrust theory, which was debunked years ago. The funny thing about about erosion is that it *actually* follows accordingly with the laws of gravity. That means that when dirt begins to erode off a mountainside, it will fall apart, and not stick together like the overthrust theory suggests. Instead of staying intact and sliding cozily underneath existing rock, it will break apart, just like the theory of evolution when it's subjected to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

Overthrusted theory? Evolution withstood scientific methods for more than 150 years against heavy ignorance and sceptisism. Not even the theories of Newton and Einstein are that strong, since they break at certain points and became parts of a larger theory - quantum gravity or string theory for example -, while evolution explains pretty much detailed how life evolved into the present state. I wouldnt call that "overthrusted".

As far as I know, dirt will become rock under certain pressure which we see pretty much everywhere in the ground. And so it can seal the dead bodies of living organisms. I certainly never said, that *everything* will stick together. I know that the earth is a geological high active planet.

+1 vote     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Nov 21 2012, 10:20am replied:

*facepalm*

The Overthrust Theory (not over-trust) is a real theory that evolutionists use to try and explain the existence of fossils in incorrect strata.

DetoNato wrote: As far as I know, dirt will become rock under certain pressure which we see pretty much everywhere in the ground. And so it can seal the dead bodies of living organisms.

You're right, fossils are formed from extraordinary pressure. However, the only way for the corpse to not decay is if it's buried, and buried very quickly. This does not fit in well with the theory of evolution, since each layer of sediment in the column is supposed to represent millions of years of deposition.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 21 2012, 10:52am replied: Online
Quote:The Overthrust Theory (not over-trust) is a real theory that evolutionists use to try and explain the existence of fossils in incorrect strata.

Ah, ok. Sorry. Well, those overthrusted rock formations seem to be quite explaining and logical for folded rock formations. I saw the explanation in some docus and creation myth debunking videos.

Quote:You're right, fossils are formed from extraordinary pressure. However, the only way for the corpse to not decay is if it's buried, and buried very quickly. This does not fit in well with the theory of evolution, since each layer of sediment in the column is supposed to represent millions of years of deposition.

Volcanos and super-volcanos (pyroclastic flows), heavy rains that create huge mud floods (well, afaik some valleys have the still), swamps, huge meteors... Yeah, fossilisation is basicly a rare prossec. Itself alone would not be a overwhelming strong evidence for evolution. Im fully aware of that.

Besides, a fossil is mineralized organic material. Means the organic components of those fossils are turned to stone. Thats why carbon dating on fossils gives wrong results - there is no f***** carbon in it.

+1 vote     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Nov 21 2012, 11:08am replied:

The thing is, fossils aren't always mineralized. Many fossils that include parts of the body such as the bones or skin are loaded with carbon, and can be properly tested by carbon-dating methods. Truth be told, there isn't any entirely accurate method of dating rocks, as they all require some assumptions on the part of the one performing the test. In case you want to discuss about rock dating methods, I'm available for debate.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 21 2012, 12:27pm replied: Online

There is not one carbon dating test, but a about dozen or so to make sure that they have the same results. Carbon-dating has an accuracy of +/- 20 million years afaik. It is not highly accurate, but accurate enough. Marine organisms have to be dated by a different method, since in the oceans are much less carbon-14 isotopes than at land.

Dinosaur fossils and older dont include part of the skin or what ever organic material, for this they are much too old. You might have traces of the skin and organs ect, but no intact ones with DNA information. Fossils of more recent life such as mammoths and Neanderthals however are a different story.

I dont know much about rock dating methods. They use another decay method, probably Helium-3 or so, not sure. But they use some elements for a decay method, because its quite accurate if you use math calculations. Do you know which element they use for dating rocks or which method after all?

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Nov 23 2012, 1:07pm replied:

@DetoNato's reply to me before CrazyTeenager joined in...

Once again you use an atheistic bias source to attempt to prove your point but you fail to prove anything once again. Here's an appropriate non-bias source:

People.howstuffworks.com

"Unlike creationism, ID does not state that God is the intelligent designer. It only says that there is clear evidence in nature of intelligent design. The designer in ID could be God, but it could also be an extraterrestrial race or some other supernatural force. Also, ID does not draw its arguments directly from the Christian Bible."

Or is the source above wrong? Hindus and theists who do not follow any organized religion use The Bible as their basis for ID?

It's time for you to use other sources other than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is good for the basic facts and details but there's many articles which have few references, are biased and contain opinions rather than facts.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Nov 23 2012, 1:10pm replied:

Oh and that 40% is the whole world not America which also has a huge atheist population with the highest number of atheist prophets and leaders coming from it, so I agree, America is still in the stone age.

Oh and the UK also has a huge population of creationists and it's rising (over 50%).

News.bbc.co.uk

Telegraph.co.uk

Also many European and Mediterranean countries have many people who deny evolution so no, it's not just America.

So you say ID defies the laws of thermodynamics because *you* think it teaches that nothing can be created out of something? I must conclude now that you are smoking something wrong because ID does not teach that, atheism teaches that and by your own words you have stated that something cannot be created from nothing. So all these past debates we've had of you saying otherwise have all been for nothing because you've clearly been lying all along. What are you then? Deist? Poly-theist? Theist? Something else? Because you just denied atheism by agreeing with what I've been saying all along. You don't get something from nothing.

"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."

Evolution had many holes before our knowledge in genetics and DNA increased and those holes have not been filled and have simply become wider thanks to new scientific findings.

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

We've been through this already and you couldn't support your argument so this is simply your opinion.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 23 2012, 9:07pm replied: Online

10% of americas population are atheists, the other 90% are theists, about 80% are christians.

But even 1000% of the worlds population could be pro ID or even young earth creationists and still wrong if the evidence points to a old earth, universe and evolution. Were is the compelling evidence that makes ID true and evolution wrong? You are talking about how many holes evolution has, but you never consider that it doesnt matter. Only if a theory can be proven false it is false, thats what falsification means. And over 150 years, evolution has not been proven false, not even once. All scientists who tried had to confirm its credibility. An argument that the assumption of ID cannot come up with.

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

We've been through this already and you couldn't support your argument so this is simply your opinion.


Wisdom teeth, eye construction, fragile bones, animalic behavior... and thats just for us humans and by far not all, only the few I know for sure.

You know what good, or at least better, intelligent design really is? Those creatures Im creating in my Mod - or rather game, Im currently switching to CryEngine3. For some features of my "Asen": metal reinforced bones, all-purpose-tools which I called "Marukai" (I explain later), immune system made of nanobot like organisms which are basicly controlled by the gut or brain and can even fix cancer, heavy disorders and deformities, no aging, high intelligence ect. There are dozens of points I can list. The "Marukai" can be used for detecting vibration through sound and movement, to protect yourself against lightning (they can work as lightning arrester, since they are made of metal) or most kinds of harms, close wounds, instantly replacing lost limbs, neural interactions with other beings and much more.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Nov 23 2012, 9:08pm replied: Online

"Whats your point?", you may ask. My point is, that intelligent design would look much more like this, rather flawless than defective, rather constructed than evolved. All we are have not been made by an intelligent designer, but through nature. We can argue about the souls (which is another word of consciousness to me), but the organic body has been evolved, all evidence are pointing to this conclusion. If your or any god(s) are coming from their realms and tell me otherwise, fine. Im listening and ready to change my mind if they can show me evidence which do not contradict the other evidence. But Im not trusting someone who is trying to convince me against a mountain of evidence that tells us otherwise.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Jan 1 2013, 1:04am replied:

...

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Jan 1 2013, 12:54am replied:

Actually 20% are atheist and 14% are non-religious. That's excluding the agnostics so try again. Either way the statistics don't change the fact that America produces the most pro-atheist material and media in the world.

"And over 150 years, evolution has not been proven false, not even once. All scientists who tried had to confirm its credibility. An argument that the assumption of ID cannot come up with."

Actually the footing for evolution has been proven false even when Darwin was alive. Ever heard of Louis Pasteur? Asides from him many convincing arguments have been made against evolution raising further questions which evolutionists cannot answer.

"Wisdom teeth, eye construction, fragile bones, animalic behavior... and thats just for us humans and by far not all, only the few I know for sure."

Wisdom teeth still serve a use. In fact they can still be used for eating. Eye construction is an "architectural wonder" according to the below site and if you have fragile bones then blame your forefathers for the genes they gave you (all explained by Mendel's Genetic Law of Inheritance and not evolution). Animalic behavior? Such as?

"You know what good, or at least better, intelligent design really is? *Talks about metal bones with all purpose tools, immortality and no aging*"

That's not intelligent design. Metal isn't flexible whereas bones are somewhat flexible which helps us. Bones are also light unlike metal. Your "creation" would constantly damage itself by accident any time it applied some sort of pressure to itself. No aging and immortality means no death and no death means earth would quickly become over-populated so while your slow, heavy and giant machine men (who wouldn't even be able to support their own weight with all those "multi-purpose" useless tools they carry in their body) fight for survival on an over-populated planet, humans would continue to thrive.

+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Jan 1 2013, 1:04am replied:

How is the human body flawed? It has limitations for a reason. You want us to be gods but that means we would never learn for ourselves and never truly develop. We were designed to be capable of great things and yet have limitations which can only be over-come with the power of our brain whose full power only unlocks when we learn. As the creator, God can choose to make us however he wants so you haven't made a point. The only thing you've shown is that your definition of "perfect-design" is different from mine.

If evolution were true and humans did evolve then why don't we have fur? Evolution is about adapting to the environment and it's always been cold. Apes (our supposed ancestors) have fur as does every other animal save for the human. It seems like de-evolution for the ape-man to lose its fur when past, present and future climate shows we need fur to survive. Of course humans have used clothing to keep themselves warm instead but if evolution were real we should have fur instead.

We don't have fur because of what the original design was. The world was supposed to be an earthly paradise for a creation with minimal reminiscence of angels in mental capacities but with limitations + free-will.

+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Jan 1 2013, 1:13am replied:

Here's a evolutionist's attempt at explaining why humans have no fur:

News.discovery.com

Yet the article neglects to mention the fact that evolution states that human evolution occurred in several places in Africa across the course of hundreds of thousands of years. So the whole "humans evolved in one hot region in Africa" is bull especially considering the fact that this hasn't been observed with any animal. Or why this region a special region which only ape-men inhabited for thousands of years straight for evolution to take effect? Sounds far-fetched to me. This my friends, is another area where evolution shows us its explicit uncensored holes. Don't show this material to your children now will you?

+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Oct 27 2012, 11:48am says:

In fact the only thing I got wrong in this article is the part saying that The Bible teaches that the earth has an orbit around the sun. Rather, it teaches that the earth is spinning which is another fact that the flat earth cosmology does not teach.

+1 vote     reply to comment
ToothlessBeast
ToothlessBeast Nov 6 2012, 3:53pm says:

should i join a group to be Christian?

+1 vote     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Nov 7 2012, 1:00pm replied:

No? Acceptance of God's word and Jesus Christ, along with love to all your fellow neighbors is what is important.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Kornet555
Kornet555 Apr 1 2013, 2:06pm says:

I would also like to note that the Bible has an evolution reference as in living creatures were created in a specific order not all at once.

+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 211 members