51 scientific facts that disprove the Bible

Hi General Anubis. A hearty welcome to EvC. Your responses appear to indicate that you are sincerely fair and balanced in your responses; a truth seeker, even. I hope we will see more of you here at EvC.Perhaps when I get time I can comment on some of your points.

---

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

Hi, fellow scavenger! Welcome to EvC!You may get as much flak from the hard-core creationists as you're going to from the reality-based side.... Dodos and various seals and sea lions come to mind - early explorers used to walk up to them and kill them while other animals watched.

Thanks for the warm welcome! (Hopefully it won't go from warm to heated! xD)Yes, I'm quite sure that there are some creationists out there who would label me as a heretical compromiser between evolution and creationism, but I'm just following where the facts lead with an open mind.Anyway, as a response to the dodos/seals/sea lions being cases of animals not being afraid of humans:
I have to say that the Bible verse mentioned is, in context, God telling man that he (man) is in a dominating position toward all animals. Walking up to an animal and killing it with little/no resistance would seem to support this claim.

And I'm sorry, but did you keep a straight face when you wrote those two? And you have the audacity to use the word "pathetic" - I think you need to look to yourself You also seem to think that the Bible could not possibly contradict itself, and use this "fact" to push your arguments further. Why should anyone accept your claim that the Bible does not contradict itself, given the rather plentiful evidence that it does?I also note that many of your "refutations" involve contradicting the beliefs of our creationist friends here at EvC. I trust you will be taking them to task over their belief, in much the way you have addressed this list?Oh, and welcome to EvC... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

There's one major problem with your linking of these two arguments that I made. You're taking both of them out of context for one thing (surprise surprise) and then putting them together to make it look like they contradict. The Pleiades and Orion clusters are actually written out fully-named as such in the Bible, not just referenced as 'stars'. This reference is made in Job, where God himself is speaking and asking Job (and his friends) who else can "bind the chains of Pleiades, or loose the cords of Orion?" This is God trying to inform them of his omnipotence.The other part, where JOHN (note: different person, different context) is being shown a vision of the future (modern day or perhaps further) and is attempting to describe what he is seeing in words that will be understood by the people of his time. Do you think anyone would have known what he was talking about if he said "And F-22 Raptors launched ICBMs from the sky"? Clearly John HAS to use symbolism in order for people to understand what he's talking about.I reiterate - A pathetic attempt.Further into your response, as you state that the Bible clearly contains many contradictions, it is likely that these contradictions of which you speak are of similar nature to the one you just tried to create from my words. Out of context, they seem to contradict. Beyond that, delving into the original Hebrew meaning of the words involved is sometimes necessary to resolve apparent contradictions.And as a response to your last part there, yes I am fully prepared to argue against any young-earth creationist and global-flood advocate. The evidence from the Bible itself and science corroborates to support old-earth creationism and a local flood.The important thing to note, however, is that believing the Bible is the inerrant word of God and being born again (and redeemed from your sins) are the only requirements for entering heaven.So, while a belief in young-earth creationism may be scientifically unsound, the fact remains that they are still Christian. Therefore, the majority of my effort is directed toward countering evolutionist claims in an attempt to pull just one more out of the fire.

But the Black Death doesn't. Black Death - Wikipedia

While a bacterium may be a living thing, the Hebrew word here translated as animals probably refers to the 'soulish animals' - Meaning those with a will of their own. The Hebrew use of this word makes this distinction clear in the creation account of Genesis 1.

Funny how God is using greek names for constellations in a jewish story. Clue you in. Even we wouldn't understand "And f-22 Raptors launched ICBMs from the sky". Mainly because F-22 Raptors, and all planes, are incapable of carrying intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Minuteman 3, for example, weighs 79,000 lbs and is almost 60 ft long. The Trident is 130,000 lbs and 44 ft long. The Midgetman is 30,000 lbs and 46 ft (and no longer operational). The JDAM, which the F-22 can carry, is 10 ft long and between 500-2000 lbs.

Considering that most of the world's biomass is composed of bacteria, and considering the essential role that they play in relation to all other life forms (we're dead without them), what does the Bible tell us about them, and where?As you mention Genesis, and "soulish animals", doesn't Genesis have something interesting to say about whales that might relate to this topic?Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

I realize F-22's are not capable of carrying ICBMs, I was trying to get my point across. The meaning would've been no different if I had said ballistic missiles in general, not necessarily of the intercontinental variety.Also - The Bible refers to bacteria in its reference of the forming of "swarming creatures" which is a catchall term in Hebrew for anything that is very tiny and typically comes in large groups, it even includes rats. Yes, whales are considered soulish creatures.

I'm sorry, but ballistic missiles won't cut it either. That's because they follow sub-orbital flight paths, that is, they go really, really high without entering orbit. They just cannot be launched from fighter jets.The missiles carried by fighter jets and the like are known as air-to-air or air-to-surface missiles, whose designs are really quite different, not to mention their purposes.

Alright - So we've established my knowledge of modern aircraft weaponry is limited. My point remains that John could not have described the events shown to him without using symbolism, or else everyone would've been completely confused. It is also quite likely that John was quite confused by the events shown to him, and made sense of them the best he could.

IF his prophecy was indeed intended for this day and age, why would it matter that people back then were confused? It would've been clear now, when it matters, not back then, when the events were till millennia away.

---

I hunt for the truth

A mere glancing reference to something central to life on earth? How strange. I think that would refer to visible swarming creatures, actually. One striking group of animals are the marsupials, with the way they carry their young. Is there a reference to any of these? Also, is there any reference to the animals that are unique to the Americas, Australia and Antartica? Or the plants? And if not, why not? I assumed that. And what do the wise authors of Genesis have to say about when the whales were created? Didn't they come before land mammals?

Like I said, it is highly likely that John wrote it down to the best of his understanding. He would have understood the images just as the others of his time would have, so he was probably quite confused about what he saw, but wrote down what it looked like to him. Also, the Bible is meant for all, not just one specific time period. While Revelation may pertain to one time period, the message contained is meant to be understood by all.