Science Proves the Bible Again

[Hollie]

The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says. This is especially noteworthy in the field of science. The science which backs up the Bible are many: The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up. Just fall to your knees and give it up now.

Science and the Bible.

Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.

Bible: Science and History

I didn't say that. We still need science texts. Just not evolution texts except for microevolution. The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.

The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.

I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.

 

[Hollie]

Oh yes, and Creationists view the Bible as additional evidence

So what? They are wrong, and it is not evidence. And the only reason they claim itto be evidence, I because they start from the point of all of it being true. Which is stupid circular nonsense.

Circular nonsense is evolution. No one knows what happened a million or a billion years ago. There were no witnesses and it happens too slowly (That's the hellish job you're going to get). Just assume it didn't happen and then panspermia becomes more important.

See the mountain of evidence for creation science in my post #479.

Science Proves the Bible Again

The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.

 

[LittleNipper]

The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says. This is especially noteworthy in the field of science. The science which backs up the Bible are many: The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up. Just fall to your knees and give it up now.

Science and the Bible.

The Bible says that rabbits chew their cud. Is that perfectly accurate?

The Bible informed the Jews about germs? Really? Then why did the constantly die of infections and communicable diseases?

Most of what the Bible says about nature is B-T.

What the Bible says is always worth of kind consideration and deep thought: Do rabbits chew their cud - creation.com

 

[LittleNipper]

Oh yes, and Creationists view the Bible as additional evidence

So what? They are wrong, and it is not evidence. And the only reason they claim itto be evidence, I because they start from the point of all of it being true. Which is stupid circular nonsense.

Circular nonsense is evolution. No one knows what happened a million or a billion years ago. There were no witnesses and it happens too slowly (That's the hellish job you're going to get). Just assume it didn't happen and then panspermia becomes more important.

See the mountain of evidence for creation science in my post #479.

Science Proves the Bible Again

The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.

You may wish to consider the obvious: Are There Any Errors in the Bible? - NAMB

 

[james bond]

The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.

As I said over and over, they eliminated their competition with the Bible creation theory who do not believe in changes over long time and modification by descent, i.e. tree of life. The "complementary" groups only support "evilution" as best theory as there is no other competing theory. There was prior to the 1850s.

Why are the secular scientists so afraid of creation? It's not new. It's not like they do not know about it. What they are afraid of is that it is right and they are wrong which is the same with the posters against creation here.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.

As I said over and over, they eliminated their competition with the Bible creation theory who do not believe in changes over long time and modification by descent, i.e. tree of life. The "complementary" groups only support "evilution" as best theory as there is no other competing theory. There was prior to the 1850s.

Why are the secular scientists so afraid of creation? It's not new. It's not like they do not know about it. What they are afraid of is that it is right and they are wrong which is the same with the posters against creation here.

"Afraid" of it? Science is about truth, not fairy tales. The creation myth is just that: a myth. Scientists ridicule it. They aren't afraid of it.

 

[DOTR]

The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says. This is especially noteworthy in the field of science. The science which backs up the Bible are many: The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up. Just fall to your knees and give it up now.

Science and the Bible.

Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.

Bible: Science and History

I didn't say that. We still need science texts. Just not evolution texts except for microevolution. The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.

The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.

I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.

If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh yes, and Creationists view the Bible as additional evidence

So what? They are wrong, and it is not evidence. And the only reason they claim itto be evidence, I because they start from the point of all of it being true. Which is stupid circular nonsense.

Circular nonsense is evolution. No one knows what happened a million or a billion years ago. There were no witnesses and it happens too slowly (That's the hellish job you're going to get). Just assume it didn't happen and then panspermia becomes more important.

See the mountain of evidence for creation science in my post #479.

Science Proves the Bible Again

The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.

You may wish to consider the obvious: Are There Any Errors in the Bible? - NAMB

God believes the Sun orbits a flat Earth:

“On the day when YHWH gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to YHWH; and he [unspecified whether Joshua or God] said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.” — Joshua 10:12-13
​

Flying insects walk on all fours.

“All winged insects that walk upon all fours are detestable to you [Lev. 11:20-23].” In fact, no insect walks on all fours. Insects have six legs, three on each side. (Spiders have eight legs. Centipedes and millipedes are not insects — in fact, they eat insects.)
​

 

[Hollie]

The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.

As I said over and over, they eliminated their competition with the Bible creation theory who do not believe in changes over long time and modification by descent, i.e. tree of life. The "complementary" groups only support "evilution" as best theory as there is no other competing theory. There was prior to the 1850s.

Why are the secular scientists so afraid of creation? It's not new. It's not like they do not know about it. What they are afraid of is that it is right and they are wrong which is the same with the posters against creation here.

Repeating falsehoods over and over doesn't make falsehoods true.

ID'iot / creationist dogma is not science, it's Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of false labels. All of your appeals to magic and supernaturalism presupposes that your gods are the true gods. All religions make this claim. I see nothing that advances your claim above the others.

None of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to supernaturalism. If you or any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. ID'iot / creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must support their claims.

There is no such theory as "bible creation theory." That is simply a slogan christian fundamentalists use to falsely label religious belief as something it is not.

Why don't your fundie ministries publish their "General Theory of Supernatural Creation" in peer reviewed literature allow the relevant science community to examine the data.

You already know why. ID'iot / creationism has repeatedly been debunked as nothing more than appeals to the various bibles.

 

[Hollie]

The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says. This is especially noteworthy in the field of science. The science which backs up the Bible are many: The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up. Just fall to your knees and give it up now.

Science and the Bible.

Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.

Bible: Science and History

I didn't say that. We still need science texts. Just not evolution texts except for microevolution. The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.

The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.

I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.

If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.

Nonsense. It was the christian church that held back science for 800 years and furthered the Dark Ages.

Galileo Galilei was persecuted by the church for his work. So was Issac Newton and many others.

 

[DOTR]

The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says. This is especially noteworthy in the field of science. The science which backs up the Bible are many: The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up. Just fall to your knees and give it up now.

Science and the Bible.

Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.

Bible: Science and History

I didn't say that. We still need science texts. Just not evolution texts except for microevolution. The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.

The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.

I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.

If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.

Nonsense. It was the christian church that held back science for 800 years and furthered the Dark Ages.

Galileo Galilei was persecuted by the church for his work. So was Issac Newton and many others.

Nonsense. Libraries, science, book publishing, schools and hospitals were all preserved by the church.
This in the face of the slow collapse of the Roman government, deurbanization and centuries of attack by pagan forces.

 

[james bond]

Science is about truth, not fairy tales.

Your statement continues to show you are ignorant about science after all the previous discussions we had. Science is the search for the truth, not "is about truth." It is about best theory (and argument over who has the best one). Anyway, I'm sure you'll forget tomorrow and be wrong again.

 

[james bond]

The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says. This is especially noteworthy in the field of science. The science which backs up the Bible are many: The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up. Just fall to your knees and give it up now.

Science and the Bible.

Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.

Bible: Science and History

I didn't say that. We still need science texts. Just not evolution texts except for microevolution. The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.

The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.

I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.

If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.

Wrong. Creation scientists are very up-to-date on science matters. More than secular or atheist scientists in some ways. Georges Lemaitre was the first to propose that the universe was expanding. You are jumping to conclusions stating it had to do with BBT.

Creation scientists - creation.com

Now, can you name a couple of secular scientists that showed anything to do with evolution that was observable, testable and falsifiable? Us so called "slow" creationists will believe it if you do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says. This is especially noteworthy in the field of science. The science which backs up the Bible are many: The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up. Just fall to your knees and give it up now.

Science and the Bible.

Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.

Bible: Science and History

I didn't say that. We still need science texts. Just not evolution texts except for microevolution. The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.

The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.

I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.

If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.

Wrong. Creation scientists are very up-to-date on science matters. More than secular or atheist scientists in some ways. Georges Lemaitre was the first to propose that the universe was expanding. You are jumping to conclusions stating it had to do with BBT.

Creation scientists - creation.com

Now, can you name a couple of secular scientists that showed anything to do with evolution that was observable, testable and falsifiable? Us so called "slow" creationists will believe it if you do.

Haha, you are the number one plagiarizer of that idiot blog, populated by no scoentists or anyone who knows fuck all about science.

But the saddest part is that , every time anyone has ever bothered to engage your horseshit in an honest discussion, you inmediately make it clear that you don't even understand the material you have plagiarized....feckin moron...

 

[james bond]

Haha, you are the number one plagiarizer of that idiot blog,

Well, you're the idiot that kept talking about creation.com and wrongly attributing it to me (despite my telling you I use AIG and ICR). Thus, I finally found an article of theirs I liked and now you don't like it and say I am plagiarizing it with zero evidence. Zero evidence is what you have for aliens, abiogenesis and we still haven't gotten anything from trying to back-engineer a chicken into a dinosaur or mini-raptor unless you are counting dino chicken nuggets .

OTOH, I did present Louis Pasteur's famous experiment to disprove abiogenesis -- only life begats life and how amino acids can't form proteins outside of the cell due to chilarity. Moreover, I presented the fine tuning facts and solar wind (including magnetic field and tectonic plates) to discard aliens. I even added SETI, Elon Musk's theories,Ferdi paradox, Drake equation, great filter and more to explain we should have made contact with ET already. Yet, you atheists and wrong scientists cannot "believe" even though panspermia has pretty much been ruled out. You still have not found a living chimp or ape that is bipedal. Yet, you claim to have the mountain of evidence and that evolution is fact. So far, the fact is evolution is wrong even though we want to see the chicken raptor .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, you're the idiot that kept talking about creation.com and wrongly attributing it to me

Which, of course, is another shameless lie form the worst liar on this board. I have caught you countless time plagiarizing, nearly verbatim, content from that site. And I have made sure everyone knows by then posting links to the blogs you plagiarize.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.

Uh...what? You write like a child.

Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.

Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.

Bible: Science and History

I didn't say that. We still need science texts. Just not evolution texts except for microevolution. The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.

The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.

I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.

If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.

Nonsense. It was the christian church that held back science for 800 years and furthered the Dark Ages.

Galileo Galilei was persecuted by the church for his work. So was Issac Newton and many others.

Nonsense. Libraries, science, book publishing, schools and hospitals were all preserved by the church.
This in the face of the slow collapse of the Roman government, deurbanization and centuries of attack by pagan forces.

It's comical that anyone would suggest that the Catholic Church was not a proprietor of the Dark Ages when it was the Church that oppressed and persecuted some of the best philosophers, mathematicians and thinkers of the period. Western civilization emerged from the Dark Ages only when free thinkers, (scientists, mathematicians, writers, poets, musicians), were able to challenge the religious authorities and examine the world in terms of events and circumstances that are not held to an inflexible, rigorous dogma that is often in irreconcilable contradiction to the natural world.

Galileo was tried for heresy ver his support of the Copernican view that the Earth revolves around the sun. I would say there is quite a bit of difference between two scientists disagreeing on mechanisms of evolution, versus the Catholic church taking 500+ years to remove Galileo from their list of "criminals".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well said.

Our secular enlightenment -- Science, classical liberalism, secular government --happened, and continues to happen, in spite of religion.

 

[LittleNipper]

The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.

As I said over and over, they eliminated their competition with the Bible creation theory who do not believe in changes over long time and modification by descent, i.e. tree of life. The "complementary" groups only support "evilution" as best theory as there is no other competing theory. There was prior to the 1850s.

Why are the secular scientists so afraid of creation? It's not new. It's not like they do not know about it. What they are afraid of is that it is right and they are wrong which is the same with the posters against creation here.

"Afraid" of it? Science is about truth, not fairy tales. The creation myth is just that: a myth. Scientists ridicule it. They aren't afraid of it.

Macro evolution is the fairy tale. True science is about repeat ability. If it cannot be repeated, it is still science fiction. Please see the following: https://wisehealthwealth.com/science-proves-evolution-wrong-human-evolution-is-false