51 scientific facts that disprove the Bible

Ever hear of an implant?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

not ~4 B. C. E.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Are you saying God had breast augmentation so He could get physically in touch with His feminine side ?For God to be meaningfully male He would need to be a sexual being. For that there would need to be other gods about or He was a self serving hermaphrodite ” not male, by the way.What were you thinking when you asked about implants?Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

The god who designed humans; who made Eve (female) from a part of Adam (male) effected a male child via his multipresent Holy Spirit. That's all we know. It is the Holy Spirit of God who moves about in the universe doing things and causing things to happen as per Genesis 1 and Psalms 104, etc. It was that spirit of God which did the creative work in Genesis 1 and that spirit of God which effected the virgin birth.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Which has what to do with God's gender? And who is "we"?

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

1. The Biblical record, from which doctrine is derived relative to God always depicts God and other entities in the masculine gender.2. The "we" refers to students of the Bible as in science when statements are made like "we do not know."

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Well,archaeologists did find figurines, and inscriptions to 'YHWH and his Astoreth' all over the place.

You'd think I'd have noticed that having spent all those Sundays in Church and Wednesdays in Sunday School (Don't look at me, I didn't name it).Do you think the question might have had a bit more depth to it?Though the second question was just snarky.AbE: On second thought, forget I asked. It's of topic.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo and forget it.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

The atmosphere is not a dome made of hammered metal.Happy Darwin Day!

If the next message isn't clearly on-topic, it's closing time.Adminnemooseus

---

1. I agree with Peg that your #1 is totally false and not Biblical.
2. That depends on whether micro changes happened to the physiology of animals after radical climate change altered their habitat. Teeth that were designed to tear flesh would have been also necessary to deal with fibrous vegetation etc.
3. Our problem with the first woman is no more significant than your problem with how the genders evolved so as to begin to reproduce male and female.
4. So what happened to a whole species of reptilian animals rather suddenly? Perhaps their physiology was somehow changed so that all reptiles became short legged. If an ice age allegedly killed them all it should have wiped out about everything else as well.
5. How do you know that humans way back when didn't live longer? It's speculation on your part just as you would claim that it's speculation on our part to belive they did live longer lives. After all, some of the animals evidently were larger etc, indicative that the habitat may have been changed at some time.
6. We have had 7 ft plus men. How do you know there weren't giants? There were likely few of them so little evidence would have been preserved.There's my response to the first 6.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

1. I agree with Peg that your #1 is totally false and not Biblical.

---

It's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the text.

quote:

---

2. That depends on whether micro changes happened to the physiology of animals after radical climate change altered their habitat. Teeth that were designed to tear flesh would have been also necessary to deal with fibrous vegetation etc.

---

It's not just teeth (and I'm pretty sure that you're wrong even there). There's the whole matter of digestion as well as the instinct and capabilities needed to catch food.Those "micro" changes are looking pretty macro from here.

quote:

---

3. Our problem with the first woman is no more significant than your problem with how the genders evolved so as to begin to reproduce male and female.

---

THAT is definitely untrue.

quote:

---

4. So what happened to a whole species of reptilian animals rather suddenly? Perhaps their physiology was somehow changed so that all reptiles became short legged. If an ice age allegedly killed them all it should have wiped out about everything else as well.

---

This doesn't even make sense. Sorry, you don't get to put forward some crazy strawman as the only alternative to your view.

quote:

---

5. How do you know that humans way back when didn't live longer? It's speculation on your part just as you would claim that it's speculation on our part to belive they did live longer lives. After all, some of the animals evidently were larger etc, indicative that the habitat may have been changed at some time.

---

Because they are human, and humans don't live that long. Not in any of the many environments that humans live in.

quote:

---

6. We have had 7 ft plus men. How do you know there weren't giants? There were likely few of them so little evidence would have been preserved.

---

Because there aren't any now, there are no reliable records or any archaeological sign of them.

Partially right, it is totally false. However it is also based upon the Bible through the genealogies and on the assumption that the days in Genesis were literal 24 hour days. Are you going to tell me you never heard of Bishop Ussher?Now Buzsaw it is your fellow creationists Ham, Hovind, and Morris, not practitioners of evidence-based biology, geology, chemistry, and physics who insist the universe is 6k years old, nor is it Deists, Agnostics, Atheists, and even mainstream Christians including Catholics. Why don't you ever criticize the YECs and their sites like AIG and ICR for their misinterpretations and outright falsehoods?Or is it that truth and morality are relative because the enemy of my enemy is my friend takes priority over not bearing false witness? Hilarious FSTDT fodder. So now form no longer follows function and intelligent design means any design is for every conceivable function. Just make stuff up, no reason to involve obvious differences in dentition between carnivores and herbivores that anyone else can see.So now that you deny all basic physics and common sense will you be making that jump over the English Channel like that guy in the Monty Python skit?...skip other goofy stuff..... How do you? There is no evidence I know of outside of a book that even you hold says day when it means billion years. So why can't thousand years mean decades? After all it is unimportant what the text says since everyone you agree with apparently has the right to say it means anything they want it to.So what is that position called? Creative Biblical Literalism? or should that be Humpty Dumptheism. Show me the money (evidence). Well when words mean nothing except what Humpty Dumptheists say they mean even pygmies are giants if Humpty Dumptheists say they are.Well that and it is physically impossible to have a human bipedal design scaled up to over ten feet in this gravitational field because of that nasty old physics business unless of course form has nothing to do with function as your apparent version of intelligent(???!) design appears to assert.(evidently words are still spelled any way Humpty Dumptheists want too, despite spell checkers in Firefox, Google, and any of the multitude of online dictionaries)That's my response. Now my brain hurts so Dr. Gumby says it needs to come out. Edited by anglagard, : change plural says to say in the Humpty Dumptheist sentence.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Uh oh. Animals changing over generations as a response to the environment?You know what that leads to......

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

1.) As has been stated, the Bible clearly denies that the first six "days" were literally 24 hours.
- If this were the claim in Gen. 1, then in Gen. 2, the Bible would have already blatantly contradicted itself, as on the 6th 'day' both Adam and Eve were created. In Gen. 2 we see that Eve is created only after Adam first names every kind of creature on the Earth. There is no possible way this all happened within one day.
- Further proof against the 24 hour creation days lies in the Hebrew term used, 'yom,' which means an indefinite amount of time.
- Even further proof is provided in Gen 1:14 where previously the 'lights in the heavens' that marked the LITERAL days were not yet visible in the Earth's sky. Therefore, the events before this had happened have no grounds with which to measure a 24-hour day from.-----2.) This claim is never made. The verse simply says that all the plants of the earth are available as food. It does not say that plants are the only food, nor does it command animals only to eat the plants.-----3.) I believe Buzsaw's point against this argument is the best one possible.-----4.) This 'snake' was actually Satan (an angel, supernatural being, i.e: see the note at the top) which had taken the form of a serpent. Granted, the judgment is passed to all serpents, which is then classifiable as a supernatural event a.k.a. - see the beginning note.-----5.) Pure speculation. From what we know, perhaps, but according to the Bible, the human race has been around for at least 50,000 years (Verses that support this: Deut 7:9; 1 Chron 16:15; Psalms 105:8). The verses I cite here say that God has commanded his word to a thousand generations. Biblically speaking, a generation was considered to be 40 years. 40 x 1000 = 40,000 years. Taking into account a prolonged lifespan for the first few generations, 50,000y.a. is easily achieved. On a site note, no spiritual/religious artifacts or expression has been found to date that is older than 25 - 50k years (as would be predicted).
- Further: -----6.) Again, based on pure speculation. To believe in evolution one must believe that random mutation is possible. It seems inconceivable, an evolutionist saying that a large human is impossible. It is likely that Goliath was simply an abnormally tall human, who (due to his size) was likely trained in the art of combat from a very early age, making him a giant not just in height but also in intimidation.-----7.) The Bible clearly depicts a local flood upon even a light study of the original Hebrew meaning. There was a word in Hebrew that meant global (used several times in Genesis 1), this word was never used in reference to the flood. However, kol erets the Hebrew phrase that has been loosely translated into "all the earth," and "all the [creatures of the] earth" almost always refers to a local area, or a group of people. In this case, the flood was global in regards to the people targeted, as all of the human race at that time lived in the Mesopotamian flood plane, so the use of 'kol erets' to mean 'all the people' (which is its more common usage) is valid in this case.
- That all being said, the second part saying that the boat could not hold all the animals is invalid. The first part refers to the length of the boat, while mysteriously leaving out all the dimensions. The dimensions of the ark follow the ideal dimensions necessary for building a seaworthy ship. Surprising, considering the Hebrew weren't exactly notable in history for their ship construction. Further, this wood was reinforced by thick, water resistant resin, as well as the boat only needed to float in about 20 feet of water.-----8.) I presume you are talking about animal life, in which case refer to the previous answer. The Mesopotamian plane could have been repopulated from small nuclear groups such as those.-----9.) Agreed. The Bible also says this, as I have stated in #7. Another thing I forgot to mention actually, is that the Bible would have contradicted itself within the span of 5 verses if the flood were supposed to be global. Gen 8:5 says mountain tops were visible, but verse 9 (after 40 days have passed) says that a dove returns to Noah because water still covered all the earth. Obviously the mountain tops (the Hebrew word here is more commonly translated as 'hills', with a different word being used for mountain, mind you) had been uncovered for at least 40 days, and there is an obvious contradiction. A local flood resolves this discrepancy.-----10.) Not sure how to answer this one, but I do know that any time people are in an unnerving situation with an animal they are afraid of, the typical advice is "Don't worry, it's just as afraid of you as you are of it," regardless of the animal. I'd like to know which animals you presume are not afraid of humans, as well as documented cases of unconditioned animals in their natural habitat not being frightened by the presence of humans. Also, animal mothers protecting their young should be disregarded, as that can be considered a special case... more of 'the exception' rather than 'the rule.'-----11.) Not sure where you got that date, but if it was from a young-earth (an highly flawed) interpretation like is represented by #1, then your dating of the Tower of Babel is equally flawed. It is highly likely that his happened 10,000 or more years ago, as such the argument you present here is invalid.-----12.) Not sure what you're getting at with this... I'd like to have further clarification as to how this disproves the Bible, verses cited, and references from which these dates are pulled as well.-----13.) Where does it say that the Israelites comprised half the population of Egypt?-----14.) This has already been addressed, but beyond that this is a spiritual event - refer to top note.-----15.) If this refers to the age of the earth in a young-earth perspective, the argument is invalid for reasons already addressed.-----16.) Spiritual event - See top note.-----17.) This has already been answered by other posters, but it mostly comes down to translation and symbolism. The most accurate Hebrew-to-English translation that we have (99.9% accuracy to original text - I have many references to cite this number if you wish), the NASB or NIV (both are equally accurate) say that the eagle 'hovers' over its young. This suggests the way that eagles brood over their nests, as do most birds.
- The argument here is a pretty pathetic attempt at debunking the Bible, IMO.-----18.) Gonna have to see some sources for that one.-----19.) Spiritual event - You know the drill. Circular reasoning will get you nowhere (no pun intended)-----20.) Where in the Bible does it say anything about Astrology? The only place I can see anything related to astrology (albeit remotely) is where in Job it speaks of the Pleiades and Orion star clusters. Actually, here the Bible states that these star clusters are gravitationally bound, and the Orion cluster is slowly drifting apart, which has been proven true by modern-day astronomy. Pretty impressive for what you are supposing are some delusional nomad shepherds in the desert.-----21.) I suppose this means you know of an experiment involving a person with that much hair, or perhaps have personally tried to grow out that much hair. Maybe the physically strongest human in the Bible just might have the follicle strength to hold up a few pounds of hair. Before you go and say that Samson could not have been as strong as he was, I'll refer you to the top note, as that is clearly defined as a spiritual event by the Bible.-----22.) Where is this found? Not saying it isn't in the Bible, but I'd rather have a verse citation so I can look it up myself.-----23.) Spiritual event-----24.) ...Spiritual event - a bit redundant...-----25.) Not sure what part you're referring to here, but I believe you're talking about the same event mentioned in #19 with the sun standing still. Nothing has changed from 19 to 25 here unless you're talking about a different event. If so, please cite it so I may read it.-----26.) Agreed. Amazing how one verse can be taken out of context and used to mean anything you want it to mean. Oh wait, isn't that your argument?
- I can't even think of another instance in the Bible where it is said that the 'world will not be shaken' - and in fact other instances say that the earth trembles. I'm putting my money on the Hebrew for 'world' in this case going back to the aforementioned 'erets', rather than the actual word for the globe of the earth, in which case it is probably referring to people.-----27.) Not sure where you're coming from here, give me some verse citations so I can read this (presumably it is in either # Kings or # Samuel I suppose? Maybe # Chronicles?)-----28.) It was an object lesson using something that the audience who was being addressed could understand. Not to mention that God comes along later and says that Job's friends didn't know what they were talking about.-----29.) This claim is never made, and this argument has been addressed by several other people already.-----30.) If you're referring to Revelations at the end of the Earth, then why do you assume that this means literal stars in the sky? It was written by a man from Bible days looking into what we now know as current day, or perhaps even further into the future. What looked like stars coming out of the sky to him could be missiles from fighter jets or any bright object coming quickly down to the earth, probably in an explosion.-----31.) This has been addressed by other people on this thread-----32.) Read #31.-----33.) Read #31.-----34.) Going to need verse citation to support this timeline please, I want to read it myself.-----35.) Already refuted by others in this thread-----36.) Read #35.-----37.) Already addressed pretty effectively by others in the thread as well.-----38.) I assume you have proof of this?-----39.) Again, presupposing spiritual events as impossible. Also, 90% of the events in the Bible have naturalistic explanations. Is it so hard to believe that events in the spiritual realm, being beyond our dimensions, could have effects that manifest naturalistically in our realm? Beyond that, refer to the top note.-----40.) Where is this coming from? The mustard seed passage? Don't really understand how this stance refutes the Bible.-----41.) Refer to #39.-----42.) Unfalsifiable claim against yet another spiritual event.-----43.) Spiritual event - Should I just start abbreviating these to S.E.?-----44.) ...S.E. - Guess so.-----45.) Bible never states otherwise. If you are referring to 'death entering the world' at the original sin, then you must be ignoring the names Adam gave to the animals, as well as the Hebrew word for the land animals created on the 6th day (the word means carnivores, or animals that eat other animals).
- As for the names Adam gave the animals, the names in Hebrew for a few animals are as follows:
Lion - It's name is derived from the Hebrew that means "In the sense of violence."
Hawk - "Unclean bird of prey".
Eagle - from an unused root meaning "To lacerate".
Owl - "To wrong, do violence to, treat violently, do wrongly"-----46.) While this may be true (sort of.. we don't have scales or chitin), humans are fundamentally different from all other animals in that the Bible says we have both Body, Mind, and Spirit - existing in a triune entity (in the image of God who shares this characteristic, no less). I can't think of a place where the Bible says the flesh of man is not similar to animals' flesh, perhaps a citation would help me out.-----47.) The Bible never claims this. If you're referring to Jesus saying that some among the group would not taste death until seeing Him return (John, specifically), the verse has already been fulfilled, and John has died. John was the apostle who was shown the end-times in a vision from God (Revelation), during which he SAW the second coming of Christ, fulfilling what Jesus said. He said 'until SEEing him return,' which John did.---------------------------------------Alright, that takes care of all of it except the ones which require further clarification.If you're reading this you either skipped it all or actually read that book of a post... in which I must thank you for reading it.If you did NOT read all of my answers, then you have little ground to stand on in arguing against any of them, as you do not know my full argument.References are available upon request... I didn't want to make this post any longer than it had to be .