There are other sources too for the Sodom and Gomorrah article. No agenda going on(Unlike human evolution), but as I said, there are other sources.
The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists, as little archaeological evidence has ever been found in the regions where they were supposedly situated
Little archaeological evidence... Of course, considering it was mostly destroyed by fire. What little evidence there is, points to the biblical account. If I could remember the other link/s I would post it.
Firstly, nearly all archaeological evidence has been destroyed via something. That's really no excuse. However, more interestingly...
What's this agenda behind evolution? I'm really curious.
Yea, theres no scientific evidence Abraham Lincoln existed either or Genghis khan or Caesar. Wait what , we dont use Science for that, but historic evidence, recordings, eye-witnesses etc.? How old are you Eiviyn?.
There's plenty of evidence that Caesar and Abraham Lincoln existed. I don't think you thought that through.
Secondly, I'm not denying that Jesus existed. He probably did. However, there's no evidence for it.
hey have found Sodom or Gomorrah too and guess what it was Obliterated by a very rare meteor shower, they have found evidence
No they haven't.
Yes they have. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343674,00.html
Fox news is a joke source with a creationist agenda. Since you accept Wikipedia;
"The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists, as little archaeological evidence has ever been found in the regions where they were supposedly situated."
I don't really have anything to comment on, but wanted to say thank you for the information. Mormonism is by far one of my weakest religions, alongside Sikhism and Jainism. I've never really looked into it before now.
actually scientist have found plenty of evidence showing that jesus existed, and was revered as the son of god in his time
There is no scientific evidence that Jesus existed, nor Nazareth for that matter. Just a well. No buildings, nothing. He probably did exist, but there's no evidence to support it.
The universe had a beginning
Nothing scientific here. This is the creationist's account of how the universe began.
The universe was created from the invisible
Atoms aren't invisible. Spray some deoderant infront of your face. Oh look, atoms!
The universe is expanding
Very generous translation of "he stretches out the heavens". This is much more likely to apply to the creation of the heavens.
Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe
"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array."
Again, very loose translation.
A god violates thermodynamics, as does the genesis account.
If the First Law is correct, which every scientific measurement ever made has confirmed, then the universe could not have created itself
Pardon me for saying this, but I love it when creationists try to use science to prove their claims, and end up getting the science completely wrong.
The total energy of the universe is 0. That is, for every positive particle, there is a negative one. 1+(-1) = 0. You don't understand thermodynamics, and you don't understand big bang theory.
We see this happen all around us. Two particles pop into existance, one an anti- of the other, then annihilate eachother.
Funny that.
The universe is winding down and will "wear out"
It's been long-held that the Earth is in an "end times" by Christians. For the past 1950 years, infact.
Number of stars
"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore."
This really says nothing.
"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured"
This also says nothing. Wrong verses?
Every star is different
It also says the Sun is not a star, which is false.
Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups
Orion is not a star cluster. It's a constellation. Yes, there's a difference.
Gravity holds them together, not God. Unless you're claiming that gravity is God.
Thirdly in 1/4 billion years, they will unbind.
Light is in motion
"What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
This passage is not dealing with the motion of light. It is dealing with the question the ancient Hebrews asked regarding where light and darkness reside. They thought that light and darkness were two independent entities that dwell in different locations. This interpretation is further supported by the next verse, Job 38:20, which reads, "That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths [to] the house thereof?"
So you misinterpretted it, basically.
Stars emit radio waves
It says "the morning stars sing". You're stretching this too thin.
The earth is controlled by the heavens
Wait, wait. This is the bible. From a biblical perspective, God controls Earth. In addition, it specifically states "God's dominion", reinforcing that it is talking about Heaven's lordship over the Earth.
Earth is a sphere
Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago): "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth."
I was looking forward to this one.
Firstly, it says "circle". Circles are flat. Secondly, the church opposed a spherical Earth for hundreds of years. I'm surprised you included this one.
At any time, there is day and night on the Earth
"I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left"
Again, not really sure how you reached this conclusion.
Earth is suspended in space
Firstly, it's not. Earth moves. Fast. It spins, it rotates, it is in an orbit around an orbit around an orbit. It is the very definition of "not suspended".
Secondly, it was (as you pointed out) believed the Earth was set up upon pillars. This would be a suspended Earth.
That Hole In The North
Sounds taken out of context. What verse?
The fact of the matter is that none of these things were discovered by studying the bible.
Any comparison that you, or a muslim with his quran, or whoever else makes these claims, is made in hindsight. If there were truly science in either, why has nothing been discovered though them?
No verses quoted at all. Thanks for proving your lazy. Though, its more the fault of the guy thinking his Quran is accurate. Why doesn`t he put the verses there?. I have the same stance against christian/or Any website/s that dont attempt to substantiate their claims/beliefs because they are uneducated or uninformed of the truth.
Nearly half the statements have "There is no theory or knowledge regarding this phenomenon.". So what the hell is it on the science list for?. Did I do the same for the list I presented?.
Some of it, apart from and including [most] of the above on that list is complete nonsense(Scientifically proven).
Whatever little[very little] it gets right, is copied directly from the Bible. Because as I said before, Quran = Corrupted Bible.
30 seconds of research would show you which verse each claim refers to. Is that too much?
Secondly, I've nearly finished debunking your list. Hold on.
Its only a sub-system and elementary at best, machines can never be `human` in the fullest sense. We are made in the image of God. We can only replicate that process via procreation. Making machine in the image of man, is, mhm, ye, would be much inferior but its still fun and cool.
We could use genetics to remove some of the mistakes that God made though.
It is, from a scientific perspective, exploring all available options. If you received unfallible evidence of a supernatural event, would you shun all possible experiments and studies of it just because of the fact that it was supernatural? And what I meant was possible credibility in the supernatural. Like, "well we really don't know much about this and it really seems like a mystery, so maybe a supernatural explanation is present here." Or would you take the arguably ignorant stance of, "well, it just can't be supernatural so let us not even consider that."
Science is the study of the natural. Supernatural is, by definition, not science.
"As far as science understands, consciousness is a product of your brain."
Seriously? As far as science understands, the universe spontaneously exploded from nothing so the whole creation rebuke part of your argument earlier was kind of pointless. Why are you here if you're going to say such stupid things such as "Science says so" as a basis for your arguments?
as EternalWraith said, "You dont see how weak your arguments are becoming."
We're talking about science in the bible. I suppose you think science shouldn't have a say when talking about science in the bible.
People are too lazy to read, and I take the time and effort to present the data here to silence any stupidity and ignorance.
Thirdly, I hope you then grant this same point to the Quran, because people have done similar things with that.
Not really. Quran is the corrupt version of the bible by the way. Again, you wouldn`t understand because you dont know that you dont know.
I read your post in full. I always do. I'll reply to each claim when I have time, but for now I wanted to point out the logical fallacy you're committing by showing the bible is special by pointing out science in the bible, but not accepting that the same can be done with Harry Potter and the Quran.
Muslims state the same thing about the bible. Don't mistake my disagreement as misunderstanding.
The brain is like the rest of the body, it is used. When you break your harm, you receive less functionality from it. When you break your spine, you also receive less functionality from it. When one's frontal lobe is damaged, one receives less functionality from it. However, that does not mean you're less concious than you would be otherwise.
Special pleading. You have no valid base to make that assertion. As far as science understands, consciousness is a product of your brain.
What? I said interest in it. If I look into scientifically proving God, does that mean I'm suddenly supporting his existence? Talk about jumping to conclusions... And way to avoid the question.
Let me remind you of your comment.
"And in the least, would you admit there is enough uncertainty about it to at least warrant a little interest in supernatural explanations?"
If that's not invoking a god, then I don't know what is. If you're invoking some other supernatural entity, then it's still the same error you're making.
Regarding Christianity vs Islam, I think you should look into haram vs halal. Specifically Qur'an, 5:3, 5:90 and 35:12. Here you can see a list of banned consumables which are "the handiwork of Satan", many of which are part of the daily life of most Christians. Is your cheese halal? I doubt it.
Islam believes Jesus was never crucified. Islam rejects the cross. Sura 4 (An-Nisa) ayat 157-158.
Given Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of God, and it literally states "but they killed him not, nor crucified him", wearing a crucified Jesus around your neck is outright rejection of their idea of the word of God.
Regarding Buddhism, they actually have a fairly solid system by which you must adhere to, in order to become a deva and ascend to Nirvana. While you could technically be a Christian and a Buddhist, there's no overlap between the two religions. A Buddhist wouldn't "know" Christ and hence wouldn't get into heaven. Likewise a Christian wouldn't live by the teachings of Buddha and hence if Buddhism is right, a Christian won't ascend to Nirvana.
Regarding Mormonism, you seem like a fair source.
I'm open to being corrected here, and I'm genuinely asking because, as you rightly pointed out, my knowledge of Mormonism isn't what I'd want it to be.
As far as I understand, God is God, while Jesus and the Holy Ghost are "lesser Gods"? Is this not correct? If it is, does this not count as breaking "3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me."? If it's not correct, what are they?
I found a few sources that stated God was an ascended man. Is this not correct?
0
How exactly would getting rid of religion help control people?
0
Firstly, nearly all archaeological evidence has been destroyed via something. That's really no excuse. However, more interestingly...
What's this agenda behind evolution? I'm really curious.
0
There's plenty of evidence that Caesar and Abraham Lincoln existed. I don't think you thought that through.
Secondly, I'm not denying that Jesus existed. He probably did. However, there's no evidence for it.
Fox news is a joke source with a creationist agenda. Since you accept Wikipedia;
"The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists, as little archaeological evidence has ever been found in the regions where they were supposedly situated."
No, it wouldn't. If you claim something, you prove it. It's not up to me to disprove it. That's not how logic works.
0
@ProzaicMuze: Go
I don't really have anything to comment on, but wanted to say thank you for the information. Mormonism is by far one of my weakest religions, alongside Sikhism and Jainism. I've never really looked into it before now.
0
There is no scientific evidence that Jesus existed, nor Nazareth for that matter. Just a well. No buildings, nothing. He probably did exist, but there's no evidence to support it.
No they haven't.
No evidence of Israelite slaves has been found in Egypt.
Science deals with facts. You can't make facts up, because someone is going to find out and bitchslap you.
0
The universe had a beginning
Nothing scientific here. This is the creationist's account of how the universe began.
The universe was created from the invisible
Atoms aren't invisible. Spray some deoderant infront of your face. Oh look, atoms!
The universe is expanding
Very generous translation of "he stretches out the heavens". This is much more likely to apply to the creation of the heavens.
Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe
"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array."
Again, very loose translation.
A god violates thermodynamics, as does the genesis account.
If the First Law is correct, which every scientific measurement ever made has confirmed, then the universe could not have created itself
Pardon me for saying this, but I love it when creationists try to use science to prove their claims, and end up getting the science completely wrong.
The total energy of the universe is 0. That is, for every positive particle, there is a negative one. 1+(-1) = 0. You don't understand thermodynamics, and you don't understand big bang theory.
We see this happen all around us. Two particles pop into existance, one an anti- of the other, then annihilate eachother.
Funny that.
The universe is winding down and will "wear out"
It's been long-held that the Earth is in an "end times" by Christians. For the past 1950 years, infact.
Number of stars
"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore."
This really says nothing.
"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured"
This also says nothing. Wrong verses?
Every star is different
It also says the Sun is not a star, which is false.
Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups
Orion is not a star cluster. It's a constellation. Yes, there's a difference.
Gravity holds them together, not God. Unless you're claiming that gravity is God.
Thirdly in 1/4 billion years, they will unbind.
Light is in motion
"What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
This passage is not dealing with the motion of light. It is dealing with the question the ancient Hebrews asked regarding where light and darkness reside. They thought that light and darkness were two independent entities that dwell in different locations. This interpretation is further supported by the next verse, Job 38:20, which reads, "That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths [to] the house thereof?"
So you misinterpretted it, basically.
Stars emit radio waves
It says "the morning stars sing". You're stretching this too thin.
The earth is controlled by the heavens
Wait, wait. This is the bible. From a biblical perspective, God controls Earth. In addition, it specifically states "God's dominion", reinforcing that it is talking about Heaven's lordship over the Earth.
Earth is a sphere
Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago): "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth."
I was looking forward to this one.
Firstly, it says "circle". Circles are flat. Secondly, the church opposed a spherical Earth for hundreds of years. I'm surprised you included this one.
At any time, there is day and night on the Earth
"I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left"
Again, not really sure how you reached this conclusion.
Earth is suspended in space
Firstly, it's not. Earth moves. Fast. It spins, it rotates, it is in an orbit around an orbit around an orbit. It is the very definition of "not suspended".
Secondly, it was (as you pointed out) believed the Earth was set up upon pillars. This would be a suspended Earth.
That Hole In The North
Sounds taken out of context. What verse?
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
You should read this. You'd like it. It's a list of 101 claims like your own that have been thoroughly debunked. You might get some ideas.
The fact of the matter is that none of these things were discovered by studying the bible.
Any comparison that you, or a muslim with his quran, or whoever else makes these claims, is made in hindsight. If there were truly science in either, why has nothing been discovered though them?
0
30 seconds of research would show you which verse each claim refers to. Is that too much?
Secondly, I've nearly finished debunking your list. Hold on.
0
We could use genetics to remove some of the mistakes that God made though.
0
http://www.scienceinquran.com/creation_phenomena.html
Here is a list similar to your own, presented in a similar fashion. Please read it.
Done.
0
Science is the study of the natural. Supernatural is, by definition, not science.
0
We're talking about science in the bible. I suppose you think science shouldn't have a say when talking about science in the bible.
Homeschooled.
0
I read your post in full. I always do. I'll reply to each claim when I have time, but for now I wanted to point out the logical fallacy you're committing by showing the bible is special by pointing out science in the bible, but not accepting that the same can be done with Harry Potter and the Quran.
Muslims state the same thing about the bible. Don't mistake my disagreement as misunderstanding.
0
"No randomness" is predictable... that's what predictable means...
Special pleading. You have no valid base to make that assertion. As far as science understands, consciousness is a product of your brain.
Let me remind you of your comment.
"And in the least, would you admit there is enough uncertainty about it to at least warrant a little interest in supernatural explanations?"
If that's not invoking a god, then I don't know what is. If you're invoking some other supernatural entity, then it's still the same error you're making.
0
@EternalWraith: Go
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html
You could've just linked this site instead of copy/pasting all it's contents.
Secondly you could do this with Harry Potter and find just as much science.
Thirdly, I hope you then grant this same point to the Quran, because people have done similar things with that.
The name of God is not Yahweh. Atleast I do not believe that. The error of the tettragrammaton.
It's YHWH. Jehovah if you read literal translations, Lord if you read amended recent translations.
You dont believe consciousness exists?. How different are you then from a rock?
I believe in consciousness insofar as the term extends, however science is fairly certain that it is a product of the brain, and not the "soul".
And if your brain was not damaged, but you died regardless?
Impossible. Your brain dies in seconds without a constant flow of oxygenated blood which doesn't happen while dead.
0
Regarding Christianity vs Islam, I think you should look into haram vs halal. Specifically Qur'an, 5:3, 5:90 and 35:12. Here you can see a list of banned consumables which are "the handiwork of Satan", many of which are part of the daily life of most Christians. Is your cheese halal? I doubt it.
Islam believes Jesus was never crucified. Islam rejects the cross. Sura 4 (An-Nisa) ayat 157-158.
Given Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of God, and it literally states "but they killed him not, nor crucified him", wearing a crucified Jesus around your neck is outright rejection of their idea of the word of God.
Regarding Buddhism, they actually have a fairly solid system by which you must adhere to, in order to become a deva and ascend to Nirvana. While you could technically be a Christian and a Buddhist, there's no overlap between the two religions. A Buddhist wouldn't "know" Christ and hence wouldn't get into heaven. Likewise a Christian wouldn't live by the teachings of Buddha and hence if Buddhism is right, a Christian won't ascend to Nirvana.
Regarding Mormonism, you seem like a fair source.
I'm open to being corrected here, and I'm genuinely asking because, as you rightly pointed out, my knowledge of Mormonism isn't what I'd want it to be.
As far as I understand, God is God, while Jesus and the Holy Ghost are "lesser Gods"? Is this not correct? If it is, does this not count as breaking "3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me."? If it's not correct, what are they?
I found a few sources that stated God was an ascended man. Is this not correct?