101 Scientific Facts: The Bible-Creationism is accurate and true.

DogmaHunter · Jun 28, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
I seldom use creationists sites but this link does offer Scientific Evidence to show the Bible is accurate and true. So the atheists can try to go through and falsify all 101 points or they can come up with evidence to falsify the Bible. For now the score is 101 to 0 and the ball is in the court of the atheists to offer evidence that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true. We know that God watches over His Word to Perform and to do what He says He is going to do. Jeremiah 1:12 We know that God's Word does not fail and that God always accomplishes His plan and purpose.

"God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" Num23:19

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isa 55:11

55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

The BLUE words are the Hebrew words that we find in our Bible. So there are only 9 words in this verse in the Hebrew Bible. Nine is the last of the digits, and thus marks the end; and is significant of the conclusion of a matter.

http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

Ow goodie.... a gish gallop.

Here's a suggestion: pick a single point and put that up for discussion.

I suggest you come in with a BANG and just pick the one point you feel is most convincing.

joshua 1 9 · Jun 28, 2016

DogmaHunter said:
Here's a suggestion: pick a single point and put that up for discussion.

Ok, here is a interesting one: #4.
"When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water."

"wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean." Lev 15:13

The key word here seems to be "running" water. A modern translation may use the word: "fresh" water. Although the Hebrew word means "Living" water. So what science can you produce to falsify this verse to show that the Bible is not accurate or true.

expos4ever · Jun 28, 2016

Veera Chase said:
I thank my lucky stars I'm not religious.

With all respect, and while I agree that the stripe of creationism we see here is profoundly embarrassing for the church, it is not fair to equate (at least by implication) being "religious" to embracing creationism

I am confident that the stripe of creationism we see in this thread - characterized by both the dishonesty and an almost joyous contempt for reason - is largely an American problem; while there are creationists of this ilk elsewhere, I believe it is only in the USA thR this camp has grown so large that you get a kind of vicious cycle where adherents backslap each other's ignorance and dishonesty and the whole thing spirals out of control. Here in Canada, people are basically not willing to admit being a creationist. And I suspect the same is true elsewhere.

I would bet the overwhelming majority of "religious" people worldwide reject this form of creationism. And while a fair fraction of "religious" people probably embrace a more benign version of creationism that is still at odds with the evidence, I would bet that > 50 % of "religious" people worldwide accept the standard evolution account.

2.

46AND2 · Jun 28, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
Ok, here is a interesting one: #4.
"When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water."

"wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean." Lev 15:13

The key word here seems to be "running" water. A modern translation may use the word: "fresh" water. Although the Hebrew word means "Living" water. So what science can you produce to falsify this verse to show that the Bible is not accurate or true.

That text has to do with abnormal male genital discharge. In other words, STDs.

Running water gonna cure gonorrhea, is it?

expos4ever · Jun 28, 2016

DogmaHunter said:
Ow goodie.... a gish gallop.

Here's a suggestion: pick a single point and put that up for discussion.

I suggest you come in with a BANG and just pick the one point you feel is most convincing.

I alone have critiqued five of the items on list - in some cases in quite some degree of detail - and have yet to be challenged on my arguments. And this despite repeated reminders.

I agree with you that we should try to focus the discussion on the actual claims.

expos4ever · Jun 28, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
So what science can you produce to falsify this verse to show that the Bible is not accurate or true.

I am no medical expert but I am confident that, other considerations aside, it is indeed better to wash contaminated clothing and people in running water. So, yes, I think the Bible provides medically sensible advice in this respect.

But it is very easy to imagine that the people alive at the time Leviticus was written would have figured out through basic trial and error that running water is best. So while the Bible provides good advice, the presence of such advice is not compelling evidence that the Bible is "true and correct" in the "God inspired it sense".

And perhaps you are not trying to make that case. If so, fair enough.

joshua 1 9 · Jun 28, 2016

expos4ever said:
But it is very easy to imagine that the people alive at the time Leviticus was written would have figured out through basic trial and error that running water is best. So while the Bible provides good advice, the presence of such advice is not compelling evidence that the Bible is "true and correct" in the "God inspired it sense".

Even if they figured it out the Bible is still accurate and true. There is a lot of advise that modern science gives that turns out not to be beneficial. For example doctors are the third leading cause of death in American. The Bible has never needed a revision, yet text books at the university are constantly going through revisions and updates. 3500 years and the Bible has never seen a revision or a update. As Christians we know that the Word of God is purified and refined as by fire. We know that God watches over His word to Perform and to do what HE says HE will do.

joshua 1 9 · Jun 28, 2016

46AND2 said:
That text has to do with abnormal male genital discharge. In other words, STDs.

Running water gonna cure gonorrhea, is it?

The issue they are talking about is just a flesh or skin infection. Today they advise you to clean the infection out with soap and water. In verse 15 they talk about how a man is to clean himself after copulation. Maybe that is what you are getting confused.

Kenny'sID · Jun 28, 2016

Jimmy D said:
Thanks, can I ask if you know the difference between a claim and evidence?

In that no evidence was posted here? Yes.

expos4ever · Jun 28, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
Even if they figured it out the Bible is still accurate and true. There is a lot of advise that modern science gives that turns out not to be beneficial. For example doctors are the third leading cause of death in American. The Bible has never needed a revision, yet text books at the university are constantly going through revisions and updates. 3500 years and the Bible has never seen a revision or a update. As Christians we know that the Word of God is purified and refined as by fire. We know that God watches over His word to Perform and to do what HE says HE will do.

I find your basic point really hard to discern. You agree that the thing about running water could have been figured out without divine inspiration. So you surely agree that this particular thing does no work at all in supporting the claim that the Bible is inspired. Your argument about "revision" seems pointless - what, specifically, is established by the fact the Bible has not been revised (since whenever the canon was established)?

You very strongly imply that revision is a bad thing, but surely you must see that revision can be a good thing.

At the end of the day, what are you saying? Sure the Bible may assert a lot of true things - that running water is better than still water for washing wounds, that there are zillions of stars, and so on. So what? These true statements are not particularly hard to come up with.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 28, 2016

Still waiting on the scientific evidence for Biblical creationism from @Kenny'sID.

bhsmte · Jun 28, 2016

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Still waiting on the scientific evidence for Biblical creationism from @Kenny'sID.

You have a better chance of winning lotto.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 28, 2016

bhsmte said:
You have a better chance of winning lotto.

More than likely. But I'm willing to hope.

46AND2 · Jun 28, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
The issue they are talking about is just a flesh or skin infection. Today they advise you to clean the infection out with soap and water. In verse 15 they talk about how a man is to clean himself after copulation. Maybe that is what you are getting confused.

No. I'm not confused. In chapter 15, it discusses 4 types of discharges:

4. unusual genital discharge in women (v. 25-30)
3. Natural menstruation in women (v. 19-24)
2. spilling of seed in men (v. 16-18)
and
1. General skin infection?

Uh, no. The chapter is quite clearly speaking of discharge of sex organs. Particularly since skin infections were already covered in chapters 13 and 14.

Veera Chase · Jun 29, 2016

expos4ever said:
With all respect, and while I agree that the stripe of creationism we see here is profoundly embarrassing for the church, it is not fair to equate (at least by implication) being "religious" to embracing creationism.

Creationism is profoundly embarrassing for everyone, it show just how big a part superstition plays in some peoples lives today.

I am confident that the stripe of creationism we see in this thread - characterized by both the dishonesty and an almost joyous contempt for reason - is largely an American problem; while there are creationists of this ilk elsewhere, I believe it is only in the USA thR this camp has grown so large that you get a kind of vicious cycle where adherents backslap each other's ignorance and dishonesty and the whole thing spirals out of control. Here in Canada, people are basically not willing to admit being a creationist. And I suspect the same is true elsewhere.

Which really is quite sad..

I would bet the overwhelming majority of "religious" people worldwide reject this form of creationism. And while a fair fraction of "religious" people probably embrace a more benign version of creationism that is still at odds with the evidence, I would bet that > 50 % of "religious" people worldwide accept the standard evolution account.

What would be even more fantastic would be if those "religious" people didn't just stop with creationism, if they got rid of their superstitions completely the world would be a much better place, but it's not going to happen is it? if only we knew what superstition thrived on? wait!!! we do don't we? ignorance and fear.

Jimmy D · Jun 29, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
In that no evidence was posted here? Yes.

Good one.

If you are being genuine, as amusing as your antics are, I hope you realize that you are not only making yourself seem foolish but also religious fundamentalism in general.

It's hard to tell if you're just having a bit of fun and trolling us though. If so keep up the good work, it's a great parody of the ignorance of creationists.

expos4ever · Jun 29, 2016

Veera Chase said:
What would be even more fantastic would be if those "religious" people didn't just stop with creationism, if they got rid of their superstitions completely the world would be a much better place, but it's not going to happen is it? if only we knew what superstition thrived on? wait!!! we do don't we? ignorance and fear.

This is a highly loaded way to frame things. You simply assume that religious belief is essentially superstition that springs from fear and ignorance.

This is clearly not the case for many people, even though it may well be the case for others. The world is indeed profoundly mysterious and there is nothing at all about the "data" that the world gives us that rules out the possibility that there are not other forces - "god(s)" if you will - at work in the world. Because fundamentalist stridency is so pervasive, it is easy to overlook that fact that there variants of religious belief in the world that embrace the hope of some sort of transcendent "divine" order while still entirely honoring the facts that the world present us with.

Atheos canadensis · Jul 1, 2016

Checking in a week later. I see the thread is primarily filled with garbage posts from both sides of the issue. Remember how I said posting a long list of arguments from some website and then declaring victory was not going to lead to fruitful conversation? I guess I was right about the level of discussion the OP would produce, eh Josh? Keep that in mind for next time.

Atheos canadensis · Jul 1, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
So, the first Atheist post some nonsense about a search on Google, then the OP answered the silly attempt at whatever they were attempting, buy producing a bigger number of results for an opposing opinion. All meaning they could go back and forth with that forever, it wouldn't solve a thing and never should have been brought up to begin with, yet the atheist still doesn't get the point, and actually turns right around and comes back with another set of numbers. At worst this is going to be entertaining.

Looks like you missed the point just as Josh did. I thought I had stated it pretty clearly, but perhaps not. The point being that it is very easy to find on the Internet a long list of points you agree with, but simply posting such a list and declaring victory is pretty unlikely to produce real useful discussion.

Edit: I kinda like being referred to as a capital "A" atheist though, so thanks for that I guess.

Kenny'sID · Jul 1, 2016

Atheos canadensis said:
Looks like you missed the point just as Josh did. I thought I had stated it pretty clearly, but perhaps not. The point being that it is very easy to find on the Internet a long list of points you agree with, but simply posting such a list and declaring victory is pretty unlikely to produce real useful discussion.

Exactly.

Atheos canadensis said:
Edit: I kinda like being referred to as a capital "A" atheist though, so thanks for that I guess.

Your welcome..I guess.

Some of us, both Atheist and Christian don't need to do anything but stick with proper grammar. Doing otherwise by design? well... it's so petty, I won't take the time to get into it..

101 Scientific Facts: The Bible-Creationism is accurate and true.

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads