|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: 51 scientific facts that disprove the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The important thing to note, however, is that believing the Bible is the inerrant word of God and being born again (and redeemed from your sins) are the only requirements for entering heaven. so believing that the Bible is inerrant is a requirement for entering heaven! There's going to be a very large bunch of highly pissed-off born-again Christians, who just weren't big on that inerrancy crap, languishing in hell
So, while a belief in young-earth creationism may be scientifically unsound, the fact remains that they are still Christian. Therefore, the majority of my effort is directed toward countering evolutionist claims in an attempt to pull just one more out of the fire. so "evolutionists" cannot be Christians? What about all my close friends at T. Baptist Church in South London, each a scientist, each very much in agreement with the theory of evolution, and each an evangelical born-again Christian? Are they for hell, too? And as a scientist, and someone who was a born-again Christian for twenty-four years, I'm pissing myself laughing at your dismissal of YECism as scientifically unsound You wouldn't know "sound" if it was slapping you round the face with a fresh lobster Anyway, back to your idiocy:
The Pleiades and Orion clusters are actually written out fully-named as such in the Bible, not just referenced as 'stars'. This reference is made in Job, where God himself is speaking and asking Job (and his friends) who else can "bind the chains of Pleiades, or loose the cords of Orion?" Really? And what exactly would the Orion "cluster" be? And it is written out fully-named in the Bible? Wow, I didn't know that it even existed! And as an astrophysicist, I really would have thought I would have known that... Here's a quick snippet from Wiki (I know, I hate it too, but it is useful):
quote: Look's like God is wrong again, huh? Omniscience just isn't what it used to be... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
They're included in the phrase, "all moving things." Which includes subatomic particles and planets. Pantheism anyone? Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: He has mentioned them all in Genesis 1. They're included in the phrase, "all moving things." That's my final comment relative to your nitpicky nonsense. All moving things? All moving things. Buzsaw, if this planet has a creator God, he cannot be the author of your Bible. Any creator of life on this planet has to be a prokaryote lover. Ask anyone who knows their biology. This planet was clearly created for them. The creator created them first, and he created them lovingly, and watched over them lovingly for 2 or 3 billion years before he bothered to create anything else, and they still comprise most of the life on earth. It is obvious that creatures like us were only created to accommodate those billions that exist happily in each of our bodies (and which keep us alive). If you worshipped the true creator, you would thank Him for them in your prayers. They are the Chosen Ones. A book that does not mention them specifically and in detail cannot be the word of the creator God of this world. Their ubiquity and dominance disproves the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
As best I know, the "51 scientific facts" of the topic title and message 1 were never found, thus dooming this topic to go amuck.
Let's wrap it up. If there's some particularly good theme lurking in there, how about a new topic? Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The important thing to note, however, is that believing the Bible is the inerrant word of God and being born again (and redeemed from your sins) are the only requirements for entering heaven. According to whom is "believing the Bible is the inerrant word of God" one of the only two requirements? And by what authority? Cutting to the chase here, based on similar encounters I've had in the past, may we assume that you would answer that it's the Bible itself that states that requirement. To which the question is, where in the Bible does it say that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
17.) This has already been answered by other posters, but it mostly comes down to translation and symbolism. The most accurate Hebrew-to-English translation that we have (99.9% accuracy to original text - I have many references to cite this number if you wish), the NASB or NIV (both are equally accurate) say that the eagle 'hovers' over its young. This suggests the way that eagles brood over their nests, as do most birds. - The argument here is a pretty pathetic attempt at debunking the Bible, IMO. 99.9%? Since we don`t have anything even approximating the autographs, this sounds like another POOMA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Also - the King James Version is quite notorious for its skewed interpretations using today's English applied to the English of that time. Your best bet will be New American Standard or New International Version. These have both been translated directly from the Hebrew/Greek texts using thousands of corroborating documents and translating meaning for meaning rather than word for word, to ensure a more accurate description of the original meaning. More POOMAS. You are going to finish up with a very sore ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Anubis Junior Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 15 Joined: |
I suppose technically you don't have to believe the Bible is flawless (actually, there is 0.1% error from reading the English translations), and no the Bible doesn't specifically say that. However, the Bible does say that it is the Word of God, in which case you would have to call God a liar to not believe something in the Bible. That is quite blasphemous if I'm not mistaken, considering God cannot lie, and also considering He said He has put His Word above Himself, meaning He would be subject to a lie if the Bible were found false in some part of it. Also, if any part of the Bible were false, what guarantee is there that any part is true then?
Further, the only real requirement is obeying the Word of God, which the Bible does say this. However, obeying the Word of God requires knowing what that Word is, which is why it is necessary for the Bible to be true, or else we would have no guide to follow in order to please God. In response to cave, 'evolution' in itself is a bit of a broad term, but if you believe in evolution to the extent of abiogenesis, then you are in direct opposition to the Bible. Furthermore, if you believe that man descended from another animal naturalistically, you completely degrade the purpose of man, and oppose the creation account. The only way someone can call themselves a Christian and believe in evolution is if they believe God created everything to begin with, set in motion the evolutionary chain for the animals, then created man separately. Beyond that requires either extreme ignorance to the Bible or evolution, one of the two. Also, yes I dismiss YEC very quickly, because every piece of evidence uncovered by science destroys it, and the Bible does not support it (unless you use a garbage translation and refuse to take verses in context). Edited by General Anubis, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Anubis Junior Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 15 Joined: |
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html
Sorry, I was off by 0.4%, the actual number is 99.5%
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Anubis Junior Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 15 Joined: |
Star cluster NGC 1981 makes up a portion of the lower half of the Orion constellation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Anubis Junior Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 15 Joined: |
Yes... they are the chosen ones surely, since God sent His Son in the form of a bacterium to die for THEIR sins. [/sarcasm]
Even a basic understanding of the Bible makes it obvious that your argument is hopelessly flawed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
General writes: Even a basic understanding of the Bible makes it obvious that your argument is hopelessly flawed. But do you understand my argument, General? Here you have a book which you claim is the word of the creator of the universe and of life on this planet. In the section on the creation of life, the author/s omit the creatures that comprise most of the biosphere. That would fit if the author/s were humans who did not know of the existence of these creatures, which are the base of all life on earth, but it does not fit a creator god who would know of their existence and of their central importance. If this god is supposed to be communicating to us, he would have told us about the creatures without which our bodies can't function, which shape the nature of the atmosphere we breath, and some of which can be lethal to us. It's 1000 times more important than mentioning, for example, birds. So, this is very strong evidence against the proposition that the Bible is the word of a creator god, and shows it to be (like all other books) a human work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Star cluster NGC 1981 makes up a portion of the lower half of the Orion constellation. A "portion" ??? It's 25-30 arcminutes across compared to Orion's body height of ~1000 arcminutes. It's a small splodge of stars just above M42 (the Orion Nebula) You really want to claim that God was refering to NGC 1981 when he used the term "Orion"? Just how desperate are you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Also, if any part of the Bible were false, what guarantee is there that any part is true then? You've got yourself a problem there, don't you, Jackal-Head-Guy? We've got pretty durn good evidence that many parts, not just "any part," of the Bible are false, so you inerrantists are rather in a bind, eh? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, it doesn't. So if there were something false in the Bible you'd be the one calling God a liar, by putting a falsehood into his mouth.
quote: Then I guess you've got yourself a big problem there.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024