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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
========================
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.
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
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.
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. 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.
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
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)
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.
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. ;)
Give me one place where the Bible is inaccurate. Have you even read it (I mean the whole thing)?
@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.
Oh, Harry Potter?! Brilliant example! I can see such a similarity with Quidditch and the Ten Commandments. Great argument! (P.S. Sarcasm intended.)
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.
Glad to be of assistance there. This resource is for Christians just as much as it is for critics of The Bible.
'Tis good to see there are still rational people in this world. Once again, you've compiled a fine argument!
@Deer_Hunter
Don't delete my comment again. This group supports free-speech.
@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.
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
Your explanation wasn't really an explanation and you can't really complain considering you were content with deleting the whole thread.
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.
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. 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.
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:
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. 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.
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
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.
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.
... 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:
And further more:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
What exactly are you smoking?
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.
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.
Geological strata is a different process than evolution...
..., 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.
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.
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.
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.
I didnt claim otherwise, did I?
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"
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.
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.
continued in next post....
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.
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.
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?
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.
*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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
...
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.
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.
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?