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

Easy to read, with sources. I am really curious what skeptics think of this. It's pretty amazing.

just a bunch of very vague statements people interpret as pertaining to scientific knowledge.

were you really amazed ? I can't believe anyone would be .

and now for some not so scientific blunders -

Genesis

# God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5

# Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

# In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14

# God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? 1:16


God worries that people could build a tower high enough to reach him (them?) in heaven, and that by so doing they will become omnipotent. 11:4-6

I won't even get into Noah - that's just laughable plus taken from the Gilgamesh story of the flood.

# Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats. 30:37-39

# God (or an angel) praises Jacob for his fancy genetic work in Gen.30:37-39. 31:11-12

( so by that line of thinking above , looking at streaked rods while two humans copulate ought to result in streaked babies ???? that's the genetic the bible is pushing ? lmao . Kind of how people though John Merek ( the Elephant Man) became that way because an elephant scared his mother. that's uneducated thinking)

that's only some ( I left out a whole lot about Noah) and it's only Genesis !

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

So Lt Ripley, I just have to ask you.....
For someone who does not believe the bible is God's word, you sure know alot about it. I am not suggesting anything or being mean spirited I was just wondering how you seem to know so much about something you obviously do not believe in.
If you have all this vast knowledge and are not looking up the answers on the internet then why have you changed your mind about the bible? That is if you don't mind my asking .

Always a pleasure

Pretty much everything Lt. Ripley just put up there was taken, word for word, from the Skeptics Annotated Bible online...

Found Here


Just another account of "Hey, I dont wanna do my own research so ill find some one elses and believe everything they have written even though it is more than apparent that they have their own agenda to push"

Thank you that is enjoyable to read !

What's wrong with that? You can look at a work from other angles and still know a lot about it. All the comic book and Lord of the Rings experts don't think it's true do they? The old testament is a bunch of jewish folk tales compiled for easy access, it's just like any ancient work.




She did link to it in her post and didn't claim it was her own work. Also the link in the OP wasn't the work of the original poster, so what's the problem?

My apologies, I did not see the link at the bottom of the post. Though, The things that Lt. Ripley posted from that site were edited by him and not a direct quote.

Lt_Ripley is a she

You don't have to believe in something to understand it. The bible was not written so only the "enlightened" could understand it. I'm an atheist but I still love to learn about the bible and what is being perpetrated in it. Gives an insight into man's mind, not god's IMO.

I never said anything was wrong with her leaving her opinion I was just curious about her knowledge and where she acquired it.

TheSilver Thong... I think that your answer makes a very good point.


Always a pleasure

I'll have a go at answering the objections, Lt_Ripley -- Just to put in a penny's worth for the Bible version,
Karlis

The "assumption" I'm making is that there was a permanent thick cloud cover in the atmosphere "in the beginning", which was changed on "day four", to make the sun, moon and stars visible through the cloud-cover -- these all existed BEFORE God started the creation process on this planet.

The sun was in existence before the first day of creation; photosynthetic processes act through cloud-cover, do they not?

The zodiac actually predates any known civilisation.

In the Bible a number of constellations are named, as if they were "created" by God. Their purpose? Basically, to be used as a memory-system in learning God's plan for Mankind. If one starts a a specific point within the zodiac, and uses each constellation as a "stepping-stone" reference point, and follows succeeding constellations all the way round, a very long and complex story unfolds, if the stars in the constellations are used as "reference points".

This biblical story of God's vast Plan is explained using detailed references in the book: "The Witness of the Stars", By Ethelbert William Bullinger. At the following link http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Zl9JmO...mbnail#PPA17,M1
you can read the book on-line, if you are interested.

The following is a short preview of the book:
In a work of profound interest to students of Christianity and astrology alike, E.W. Bullinger uses astronomy, celestial charts, and quotations from the Bible to make his case for the existence of God's Word within the movements and configurations of the stars themselves. Beginning with proof in Psalm 19 that "the Creator both numbered as well as named the stars of heaven," Bullinger interprets each of the Twelve Signs of the Zodiac as they relate to biblical prophecy, arriving at some interesting-and controversial-conclusions. British clergyman ETHELBERT WILLIAM BULLINGER (1837-1913) was one of the most respected Bible scholars of the 19th century. He is author of numerous works including Commentary on Revelation, Great Cloud of Witnesses, and How to Enjoy the Bible.

Picky, picky, picky. Methinks you can work that out without help.

In simple terms; this is symbolic of "advancement" through Mankind's co-operation in gaining technology.

At a guess, if God had not intervened at that time, perhaps Mankind could have developed nuclear capability in rather short time. Not a good idea, methinks, at that time. Even in our day, I think this life on this planet is facing very likely destruction at the hands of Man. Consider the words of Jesus some 2,000 years ago:
Mat 24:21 for then shall be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved [alive]. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened.

Hhmmm -- consider the dimensions, and especially consider the proportions of the "ark".

Please check out the ratio of the length of the ark to its width ... length is six times the width.
Considering that the "ark" was 450 feet long and 75 feet wide, that is precisely the ratio that today's marine engineers know is the ideal for sea-worthiness, stability and structural integrity/strength of large, ocean going vessels.

Also -- in the Gilgamesh epic, the craft was a square vessel; completely unstable in rough weather.

The rods, etc., had nothing to do with genetics. It was God's supernatural intervention.

you'll notice the link? I am looking up reference. My memory is crap and most people I know who do rely on memory don't remember things as they actually are. now after 24 years studying the bible what changed my mind ? reading facts about the bible . understanding that the culture then isn't being taken into concideration today when the bible is viewed. that the bible has been edited and written according to historical and political agenda , not really for anything spiritual, but to garner power over people , not set them free.

in other words .... common sense.

my own research ? as opposed to those who blindly believe the bible ? where they are too afraid to use common sense ? and common sense is the agenda I'm pushing.

I replied to the post of 101 scientific facts ------ I posted things that are not fact in the bible. no matter how you cut it - a bat is not a bird and donkeys don't talk. and the unicorn never existed although they do in the bible.

One question. Why does the Bible make no mention of Dinosaurs? We know for a fact that Dinosaurs existed. Yet, when God handed down his history, he made no mention of them. I've heard it said that the story of Jonah and the Whale was a reference to Dinosaurs, but I don't believe this to be so. Man did not exist when the Dinosaurs roamed the planet, they certainly hadn't mastered sea travel.
Could the answer be that the last addition to the Bible was made in the 1600s, where the first Dinosaur bones weren't discovered until the 1800s? They can't include something if they don't even know it existed. Yet they should have, seeing as God would have been the one to create the Dinosaurs.
Another point is the planets place in the Universe. According to the Bible, as God's chosen people, we were supposed to inhabit the center of the Universe, an honoured place. Yet we now know that we live in a rather unimportant part of the Milky Way Galaxy in a rather unimportant part of the Universe. Might this be because we knew next to nothing of Astronomy and science back when the Bible was being compiled? Is this why the Church came down so heavily on proponents of science, because they knew that science would be the end of religion and the end of their dominance and power?

I can't speak for those who take the creation account as literally six 24-hour periods, but I see the creation account as a metaphor. But, as you would then say, using this reasoning then, where do you draw the line - is everyithing then metapohorical? Essentially, I would answer this as it being a matter of context. I don't simply say that the creation account is a metaphor as a means to "rationalise" the event, but rather base this on the figurative and poetic nature of the passage itself. There are clear textual reasons for my saying this is a metaphor.

The passage is filled with conventions of figurative language that is consistent with Hebrew poetry. The relationship between the days of creation is quite telling. If you have ever had the chance to study it, you will note that the 1st day and the 4th day are inextricably related, as are the 2nd and 5th day, and the 3rd and 6th day (very structure - 1,4; 2,5; 3,6). To break each day down into its relation, what you really have is:

Day 1: God creates light
Day 4: God creates the source of light

Day 2: God creates the seas and the sky
Day 5: God creates creatures to live in the seas (fish, etc) and the sky (birds, etc)

Day 3: God creates land
Day 6: God creates creatures to live on land.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Day 7: God rests from creation

As you can see there is a distinct relationship between the first half of the creation story to the second - six parts to the poetry of the story, completed by the 7th day of creation, when God rested from his work - the seventh day was added to address one of the symbolic numbers of the Hebrews - 7, which represents perfection and completion (read up on other pieces of symbolic writing and the number 7 is used extensively for just that purpose).

To me, the structure of Genesis 1 is a clear indication that this is a piece of poetry and thus not necessarily taken literally. I would say that the context of this passage for me supports a metaphorical interpretation. Other parts of the Bible may or may not do the same. You'll just have to read it and see, won't you. Unfortunately, many people don't think that way these days (at least about the Bible). They take the view that either you take everything literally, or everything metaphorically. To me, that's a lazy way of looking at the Bible, because it ignores everything to do with every bit of context.

I realise this is skeptics annotated Bible, but the same poetic device are evident in these sections as in the creation of Genesis 1-3. The entier first 11 chapters of Genesis follow similar patterns. I don't know the exactly symbols of some of the writings, but I know some (40 days of floods, 7 pairs of clean animals, being just two examples).

I know I'm not arguing here for a young-earth creationist outlook, so my view will obviously differ from others. I'm just saying that Genesis 1-11 is not the best place to start from historical narrative (IMO). Chapter 12 onwards though.... that is a different story. There is no indication taht this is poetic, having been writtein as an historical account.

Just a thought. In the meantime, good night all. Long week ahead. All the best, and enjoy your time on the forums.

~ PA

So what we like (or what fits) we take at face value and the rest we are allowed to interpret?

i am a believer, yet great job

did u notice that our religion, christianity, is one of the few religions with only one god and that teaches tolerance (its the first that did this)

It might teach tolerance but as can be seen clearly from a lot of christian groups it's far from all it teaches.

Very good point there PA.

Nice find Ghost it! That was a very interesting read and it sure brings up some things to consider. Thanks for posting it.

101 points of science

i found it interesting

until the shots at science came into it. it was speaking of scientific notions in the bible then turn and spit on science.

if science is a joke why make a point of showing the wisdom of science.


all though i disagree with the
no light = no plants

life needs energy not light.
although i assume god did not create the sun or moon but that dark cloud over earth finally lifted to show their placement.

i also beleive that man knew way more in those times just didnt word it for us to understand.

That's easy. From an evolutionary standpoint, the egg came first. I solved that in my middle school biology class. An animal with a mutation is born, if that animal's mutation is favorable, it survived to pass on its genes, if it wasn't it died. Hence, the egg containing the mutation would have been first. And since when did the chicken and egg "dilemma" become a basis for any scientific "fact" about the bible? I find that strange in itself.



Lets forget that most genocide results from religious differences. . . .And that alot of places still deny or don't really care about evolution. . .In fact, the United States has one of the lowest evolution "acceptance" rates out of 34 countries that were polled we were only "beat" by Turkey. . .link



That's making their own facts. Many would argue that there is a "mass of fossil evidence" to DISPROVE this "fact"link

)

The "Adam" that they are speaking of was not the only human existing at the time. . .he was the only one who has MALE offspring that has survived to modern times. There would have to have been a male born in every generation for his DNA to have survived. . .whenever a female is born, the line is broken. The common male ancestor now is not the same common ancestor for past generations. The common ancestors change with time as lines die out. There is also a current "Eve" but her and "adam" are separated by 30,000 years or more. Here's an article that gives a good explaination of it Eve And the article on this "Adam" states




There are plenty of explanations for the different languages. Humans migrated. We dispersed. As these groups evolved together they created their own forms of communication. In some cases, even the languages migrated, but they, like the people that used them, changed over time, ie, some of the major languages evolved from Latin.

And, I'm not seeing how this is a "fact" that should be used to authenticate the bible. . .you can't use the bible to authenticate the bible. . .that just doesn't make sense. That's like a person using their own views to prove that they are "right". . .



Hmm. . .I think us "nature worshippers" are still the minority. . .and, again. . .how is this a scientific fact from the bible?



So, in all of science, we have never seen proof of evolution? Evolution doesn't state that we'll see a chicken give birth to a hawk. . . it shows gradual adaptations as well as favorable mutations. . . Which is something anyone can "witness" by studying biology and zoology. This isn't a scientific fact from the bible, this is the bible disputing science. Extinction comes with climate change and interference with humans. If humans weren't on earth, then extinction wouldn't be as big of an issue. Things would follow the natural order. However, most of the recent endangerments and extinctions are a byproduct of overpopulation by humans.

And, I could go on, but I hate making long posts.

I agree with you - this stuff is amazing! But it doesn't surprise me....

The scientific information given in the Bible was given by advanced people from another planet who created us and we mistaken for Gods. These advanced people knew all about the reality of our universe way before they created us, and they taught traces of these truths to the early humans. When we discovered these things on our own, it only backed up what the Elohim (a plural word meaning those who came from the sky in hebrew) taught our ancestors.

They've also given new scientific information to their new prophet Rael in 1973, which was laughable at that time, but science is confirming this information every day.

You can download Rael's book, 'Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers' for free at www.rael.org

-Josh

Ooops! I didn't read all of it....

There is much in those 101 statements that is wrong...

I'm talking, more specifically, about the statement that says there is scientific evidence that ANY sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is dangrous to health. This is ignorant and stupid. Even married people can contract sexually transmitted infections. What a silly statement to make!

There's another statement that says that since the theory of evolution came in (and people have forgotten God and believed in this instead) that there has been a sharp rise in genocide, crime and pornography! Again, a general and silly statement.

There's also scientifically 'sound' statements that are also wrong eg. that the universe had a beginning. That light is a constant etc.

We must remember that whilst there are traces of truth in the Bible, much of it has been wrongly transcribed and distorted through the various political and religious powers of the time.

Basically, I want to state that the 101 list is very very general and has some element of truth to it. But I think it was compiled by a very ignorant person who twisted 'scientific fact' to their own needs.

-Josh