LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
101 ways the "Biblical science" claims in the list provided above are false.The bible is riffled with liesyou mean like this mind these things were written long before the science of man knew any of these things.
101 [More Things Youwerecreated copy/pasted in whole because he doesn't have a thought in his head]
--SNIPPED--
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
1. No mention of gravity in Job 26:7, what-so-ever. This is just Job affirming his superstition.
But to be fair, the bible is consistent in that the Earth is not hanging on anything; it rests (because of gravity I suppose) on foundations.
2. No mention of particles or specific descriptions of atoms in Hebrews 11:3--this is about faith; about seeing what you believe in, rather than believing what you see.
3. Woefully incomplete, dishonestly overstated, utterly retarded.
4. Entirely ignores the reality of bathing in the pathogens living in running water.
5. I am entirely surprised that these douche-bags didn't also claim that there were no shovels before this verse.
6. LOL. Despite the known existence of other spring-fed bodies of water, it was only recently that anyone considered the possibility that underground springs might feed into the ocean. So fucking dumbass.
7. No mention mountains under the ocean here.
8. LOLsome.
(n.b.: You're going to see much more links to google searches like this. The assholes from the site YWC provided have a retarded proclivity for making categorical statements like, "Evolution cannot explain [whatever]" as if such statements were self-evidently true. They are not, and the purpose of providing you with google searches is not to endorse some particular explanation, but rather to point out that such explanations in fact exist in direct contradiction to the dishonest assertions of the retards who compiled this list (as well as the dishonest retard who submitted it as valid) and that discovering those explanations is ridiculously easy.)
9. Christians still believe that bathing in the blood of Christ is the means to forgiveness.
10. "Kind" in this context, is entirely meaningless ... even to Christians. (Seriously, get one to define the term.)
11. False. It is intellectually and morally wrong to equate sacrifices to investments. Investments inherently have the expectations (if not the actual realizations) of greater returns--of rewards; sacrifices are about taking losses without rewards, or without rewards greater than the loss accepted. Human sacrifice is not noble--it is the precise opposite.
12. False. The answer is: egg.
13. Superstition.
14. We are 44 billion year old stardust.
15. Nonsense. No mention of the constant quantity of matter and energy in the universe, or that "finished" means such.
In fact, Gen 1:1 says God added earth, light, and everything else to the
(apparently) already existing matter of the universe, which (apparently) was entirely water.
16. On that basis, neither does this account, considering how there's no observable evidence that God exists, other than that which can only be observed (as evidence of God's existence) if you already believe God exists. Believing is seeing for these retards.
17. It doesn't require science to prove that a broken clock is right twice a day.
18. Nope. Circles are flat.
19. No mention of night at all--I doubt the reference was about sleep.
20. No mention of this different environment that prevented sunlight from striking raindrops.
21. Just the way retards get adaptation and mutation confused, they also get diffusion and refraction confused.
22. Ocean navigators were apparently oblivious to ocean currents before Matthew Maury pointed them out.
23. Fidelity in marriage is not proof against disease--even STD.
24. Nothing here.
25. No mention of the exact number though. It appears that this number is just as incaluable for God as it is for the retards who invented Him. Not surprising.
26. You can say just about anything about an imaginary friend! What an awesome imaginary friend!
27. Oh. So we managed to figured out some kind of idea of the number then. Ok.
28. What Creator? What evidence?
29. There is no fossil evidence proving that a flood covered the earth--the fossil evidence contradicts such claims.
30. Not all together in one layer-like you'd expect if they were all caught up in this massively catastrophic event.
31. Waaaaaay back before Genesis, 6 - 10k years ago.
32. Right. That same cataclysmic event apparently also isolated the Americas and Australia from being populated by human beings and any land animals.
33. There is no mention of ice-ages here. Certainly not one of cataclysmic proportion like Snowball Earth. I mean seriously, there's evidence of glaciers all over the planet ... every catastrophic geologist knows that such evidence is undeniable proof of such a catastrophe, and all opposition is just dogmatic adherence to established ideology.
34. He also "sees you when you're sleeping; he knows when you're awake; he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!"
35. There's no talk of embryos or embryonic development here.
36. No mention or specific description of DNA here. No mention of a double helical structure, base pairing, nucleotide sequences, etc.... nothing.
37. These superstitious retards have all kinds of justifications for the incest that has given rise to their metal disabilities.
38. "Evolution ... offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today."
Retards.
39. There is literally no mention of how "each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation." None at all.
40. There is no "rediscovery" happening at all. Continuing discovery is what is actually happening.
41.First I find it rather interesting that this God who allegedly "created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind... [and] saw that [it was] good." (Gen 1:21) Now what was "good" is now "unclean."
I also find the Bible's scientific truths about bats and hares to rather illuminating.
42. This Bible is so much "smarter" than "science." Scientists haven't yet discovered that bats are birds.
43. Of course, Leviticus says nothing about it being ok to eat properly cooked pork. Bacon and pulled pork bbq is still unclean no matter how it's cooked according to the Bible.
44.This makes no such claim at all. In fact, it more closely indicts those who believe that the words in the Bible take precedence over the Word of God.
45. There is zero mention or specific description of black hole or dark matter. This is just more superstitious wishful thinking.
46. The theory of evolution simply does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And it never has. Ever.
Creationists are persistent liars on this account.
47. Again, the faithful rationalizing their penchant for incest.
48. Theres no mention of a curse being the cause of genetic mutation. There's no discussion of genetic mutation ... PERIOD.
Creationist deny that this is possible anyway; otherwise they'd be validating one means by which genetic differentiation occurs; genetic differentiation is the means by which evolutionary theory describes how differentiation of species occurs and is expressed.
49. Cotton/polyester blends are out too.
50. "The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin."
They got them from the book of Genesis.
51. According to the Bible, the sun must circuit a fixed Earth.1 Chron 16:30 Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5
52. No because he knew not a single thing about clotting factors, but more likely was not denying the evidence of greater bleeding when infants were circumcised earlier.
53. This doesn't make any claims regarding the amount of water He created, or that the amount He measured has any specific importance to life. In fact, this claim literally means that God's "creation" is subject to the rules of reality rather than God's will.
Getting the amount "just right" is meaningless to any being who allegedly decides what "just right" is.
54. God being created according to the Strong Anthropic Principle, is the perspective from which this assertion makes sense. Weak Anthropic Principles do not assert any kind of "fine tuning" is in play.
55. The Biblical "heavens" refers to a static dome (or vault) which God formed (or stretched) over the Earth. The Bible make no reference to, or specifically describes an expanding universe.
56. Any argument for God's uncaused nature, is an argument that can be applied (far more honestly BTW) to the uncaused nature of the universe.
Creationists literally demand that life came from non-life, and they insist upon denying the very reality they assert--such is the necessary nature of faith.
57. There is no mention of extinctions here, and (as predicted by evolutionary theory) the arrival of new species has actually been observed.
58. This mentions nothing about light traveling along a path. This explicitly describes the notion of one taking a path to the place where light resides.
59. This makes no reference to the mass of the atmosphere, or the pressure that mass exerts upon the surface of the planet; it appropriately speaks to the force of the wind.
60. No one but an idiot who had never been in the wind would assert that the wind only blew straight. Ecclesiastes 1:6 says not one thing about the Jet Stream; otherwise, rather than South to North (and South again to make it's circuit), it would have described that reality (that God would certainly be aware of) of the Jet Stream's west to East circuit.
61. This is just an indictment of superstitious retards who refuse to make the connection between exposure to people with a sickness and becoming one of the people with that sickness, based solely on the verifiable evidence and applying valid logic to the problem.
I'm all good with supporting the religious in their refusals to allow vaccinations and blood transfusions for their dumbass participants. There's a strong argument for not protecting these morons like they're an endangered species.
62. Well, God and the angels, ... and everybody else who was able to discern the different sizes and colors of stars when they looked at them.
63. There's no talk about light being sent as speech here. There's no reference to radio or EMF. It's talking literaly about lightning--the atmospheric phenomenon. It's a challenge regarding sending lightning to specific points such that one's intention to do so is unambiguous.
Superstitious faithies just make whatever claims they want and expect that they should all be regarded as valid.
64. Seriously now. Let's just accept for the purposes of discussion this 6k year old history of humanity. Solomon writes about 3000 years of anecdotal evidence for the correlation between "a merry heart" and goodness of health, and then 3000 years later scientific study affirms the validity of these observations.
What is being asserted by recognizing this? Not some amazing property of the Bible, that's for sure.
65. Seriously? Again?
66. Not a single mention of microbes. Not one.
Entirely unsurprising that these fabricators of fictions should assert that microbes were even suggested.
67. This is entirely about not eating potentially rancid fat or the fat meant for God, and nothing at all about any connection between eating fat and coronary/cardiac disease.
68. Drinking the blood of a truly innocent human being is fine though.
Modern science say's that's dangerous too.
69. Contemporary superstitious types like to assert this (behemoth) as a description of a dinosaur, while traditional superstitious types assert this to be a description of an elephant or, more likely, a hippo.
70. There is no explanation for pleasure here; it just a description of having it.
Evolutionary explanation for pleasure
71. Life may be more than just matter and energy, but it certainly is not derived solely from the imagination, as the observable evidence indicates where notions of existence of God came from.
What the observable evidence also indicates is that life actually can be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone-–just as evolutionists would lead us to believe--even if that explanation is not completely satisfying.
Scientists can (and do) admit that the current explanations based upon verifiable evidence and valid logic require more evidence and greater understanding to achieve confidence in certainty. This fact is validation of the argument such explanations are intellectually and morally superior to superstitious creation stories.
72. This is no explanation for music.
Evolutionary theory for music
73. The theory of evolution is well supported by the archeological record, and the archeological record conclusively refutes this assertion made that "Our ancestors were not primitive."
74. This speaks nothing to refuting the evidence that our ancestors were primitive, and speaks entirely (and only) to some contemporaries of Job.
75. This speaks to some pretty bad weather, rather than "environmental devastation." (Though this interpretation these asshats offer fails to explain how often skeptics of AGW science also avoid having AGW faith.)
Also worth noting; evolution science has no imaginings and makes no assertions about how "things [regarding the environment] should be getting better."
76. This just says that the various plants carry their own seeds.
The reality that these asshats ignore in their assertion is, that rather than the plant carrying its life in its seed, the seed carries the life of a separate plant.
And just to cut off the predictable assertion that is so likely: there's nothing the least bit amazing about how contemporary scientists observe the exact same objective reality that our superstitious ancestors observed. (What actually is amazing is how superstitious perceptions of reality are held to be objectively valid (by the superstitious, of course) when such perceptions are so grossly at odds with verifiable evidence and valid logic.)
77. This is just a denial of the scientifically validated assertion that dead seeds do not germinate to produce living plants.
There is no biological principle which asserts that "A grain must die to produce more grain."
It's difficult to avoid making the accusation that these asshats are frankly, just lying at every opportunity.
78. Genesis 1:1 states that air and water was created first--there was no (dry) earth--then light, and then (dry) earth.
And this is different from the series events that are typically attributed to the scientific description which goes: light (from the sun), earth, atmosphere, and then water.
79. The observable evidence makes no claims that the sun and moon were created after the earth. The observable evidence most certainly disagrees with the Creationist's claim (based upon the Bible) that the existence of plants proceeded the existence of the sun and moon.
80. Deu 10:14 speaks of the (solid; literally solid, so that a window could be put in it) material dome of the sky which God stretched over the (flat) circle of the Earth, and some additional dome for God to hang out under.
That's no accurate description of "vast reaches of outer space."
The same thing is going on in 1 Kings 8:27.
As for this "third heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:2--it's a little town on the island of Atlantis, where Santa's toy factory really is located (the observable evidence agrees with science that Santa's toy factory is not, as alleged, at the North Pole.)
81. Today, what we actually know is that anyone who treats wounds with a bandage soaked in olive oil and wine is someone not competent to treat wounds.
This is not to say that I disagree with the practice--particularly if its practiced on those superstitious retards who's notions of moral purity make them suspicious of clean dressings and competently prepared antibiotics.
But to be fair (to a bunch of retards who are not), wine does have some antiseptic properties, but it's not really from the alcohols; and a little olive oil applied to a coarse dressing might help prevent the dressing from pulling the scab (provided you don't believe that lacking faith in the original dressing will nullify the healing magic).
82. When the superstitious describe themselves as "fearfully and wonderfully made," the rest of us hear "clownshoes."
83. These are claims of beauty, not understanding or explanations of it.
84. Another claim fabricated out of their disingenuous imaginations. Not a single mention of atoms, or their nuclear structure. Certainly no explanation for strong and weak nuclear forces--which BTW, these asshats wouldn't have thought to mention if not for the work of scientists who have "no explanations" for them.
85. No mention of atoms, or the fission of atoms.
I anticipate some more disingenuous fabrications from the imagination of these retards.
86. There's no mention of gravity here.
Also, as they stupidly fail to realize they revealed, the Orion cluster is presumed by this verse of the Bible to be bound, rather than unbound.
87. Again, these asshats confuse the issue. There's nothing the least bit amazing about how contemporary scientists observe the exact same objective reality that our superstitious ancestors observed.
There's an important distinction to be made however, between the validation science offers of these descriptions, and pretending that the Bible offers these descriptions with the understanding of the validations presented by science.
88. This pest control rationalization is just more imaginary crap.
Resting the soil, of course, is not; that's what the verse speaks to. But the pest control business ... imaginary.
89. No mention of soil conservation what-so-ever. None.
At least this time they thought to mention the actual point, but as a secondary consideration to the imaginary point they assigned to the verse.
90. There is literally no explanation to be found here for understanding animal instincts what-so-ever.
It is just another opportunity to make the baseless assertion that evolution has no explanation for something.
91. This verse speaks nothing to the subject of conscience.
Evolution speaks to it though.
92. The theory of evolution is consistent with the observable evidence, because it seeks consistency with the Word of God. Creationism is inconsistent with observable evidence because Creationism attempts to maintain consistency with the Bible; which is without argument an attempt to maintain consistency with the words of men.
93. Science refutes the superstitious claims of the Bible in many ways. The Bible is a weak construct of man, and science repeatedly demonstrates the Bible's inadequacy in explaining the Word of God.
94. This demonstrates no understanding of human conscience what-so-ever. It just asserts its existence.
Evolution speaks to it though.
95. This demonstrates no understanding of love what-so-ever. It just demands love.
Evolutionary explanation for love.
96. "The real you is spirit." So what?
"Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donor’s character." Would the same thing be true for a brain transplant? Does what we know from (scientific study of) brain injuries agree with this claim that "personality is non-physical?"
97. There's no doubt that the god of Creationists is a complete douche; his record is unambiguous--it's the reason that good and rational folks reject the Creationist's vain, sadistic, and blood-thirsty God of torture, suffering and human misery.
We value fairness and forgiveness, so that's why we let you propagate your crap amongst the retarded who subscribe to your demented superstitions--but we're not stupid, and that's why we have rules to keep your bullshit separate from government, and prevent superstitions from being taught as fact of reality to school-children.
98. There is no explanation of death offered here. These only assert its existence and it's application as punishment.
Evolutionary explanation for death.
99. There's no explanation of understanding for justice found here.
And I fail to see how any of this relates to what "science" or "evolution" allegedly offers on the topic.
100. Eternal life? ok. I fail to see how any of this relates to what "science" or "evolution" allegedly offers on the topic.
101. I fail to see how any of this relates to what "science" or "evolution" allegedly offers on the topic.
I will say this though, the rationalizations for faith in the Bible is not the same as the valid reasoning appurtenant to scientific inquiry and conclusion--nor does it enjoy the same intellectual or moral validity.
If the premise of your paradigm is that the Genesis stories are consistent with the assertions that In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. That all things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. Then I'd tell you that you truth about this Creation you believe in is going to be discovered in the direct product of the Word, rather than faith in the ignorant artifices of the Bible.
Last edited:
