Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man by Hugh Ross
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wiccan_Child" data-source="post: 32229935" data-attributes="member: 104966"><p>A theory can have nigh-on all the supporting evidence in the world, but <em>just one instance</em> of contradictory evidence, and the theory is disproved. Never proved, but potentially disproved. The same happens with the Bible: you can support it all you want, but just one count of contradiction, and the Bible cannot be entirely true (as John and, I assume, you advoke). So, onto the contradictions with science:</p><p></p><p><strong>Gen 3:14</strong> says serpents will henceforth eat dust. Except, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake#Diet" target="_blank">they don't</a> .</p><p></p><p><strong>Gen 8:8-11</strong> implies that olive trees germinate and bear leaves within a week. Except, they don't.</p><p></p><p><strong>Gen 11:1,6</strong> says that there ones but one language on Earth, and Gen 11:9 says that the multitude of languages were instantaneously created. Except, there wasn't (there were many hundreds of languages by 2400 BCE), and they weren't (languages gradually evolved).</p><p></p><p><strong>Ex 1:5,7, 12:37, 38:26</strong>, all say or imply that the Israelite population grew from 70 to several million within a few hundred years. I don't think I need to point out what's wrong with that scenario.</p><p></p><p><strong>Lev 11:13-19</strong> clearly states that the bat is a fowl. Except, it's not, it's a mammal.</p><p></p><p>QED.</p><p></p><p>Also, not so much a contradiction to science as a baffling unknown:</p><p>In Gen 1:16, a 'lesser light to rule the night' is made. But this can't refer to the moon, since it is neither a light (lesser or otherwise) nor does it 'rule the night' (it spends half it's time in the daytime!). What, then, is this lesser light?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wiccan_Child, post: 32229935, member: 104966"] A theory can have nigh-on all the supporting evidence in the world, but [I]just one instance[/I] of contradictory evidence, and the theory is disproved. Never proved, but potentially disproved. The same happens with the Bible: you can support it all you want, but just one count of contradiction, and the Bible cannot be entirely true (as John and, I assume, you advoke). So, onto the contradictions with science: [B]Gen 3:14[/B] says serpents will henceforth eat dust. Except, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake#Diet"]they don't[/URL] . [B]Gen 8:8-11[/B] implies that olive trees germinate and bear leaves within a week. Except, they don't. [B]Gen 11:1,6[/B] says that there ones but one language on Earth, and Gen 11:9 says that the multitude of languages were instantaneously created. Except, there wasn't (there were many hundreds of languages by 2400 BCE), and they weren't (languages gradually evolved). [B]Ex 1:5,7, 12:37, 38:26[/B], all say or imply that the Israelite population grew from 70 to several million within a few hundred years. I don't think I need to point out what's wrong with that scenario. [B]Lev 11:13-19[/B] clearly states that the bat is a fowl. Except, it's not, it's a mammal. QED. Also, not so much a contradiction to science as a baffling unknown: In Gen 1:16, a 'lesser light to rule the night' is made. But this can't refer to the moon, since it is neither a light (lesser or otherwise) nor does it 'rule the night' (it spends half it's time in the daytime!). What, then, is this lesser light? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man by Hugh Ross
Top
Bottom