Science And The Bible - Introduction

[Daystar]

Anyway, to your point - the thing is, I'm not rejecting evidence. You accept FACTS about the universe that don't conflict with the bible. I accept probably nothing factual about the bible. Its just a matter of speculation. If I actually thought there was evidence in there I would accept it.

So you are saying that there is probably nothing factual about the Bible without ever having read it or checked its facts? You do this in the name of evidence and science and you think I can't call you out on it?

You see that? What I did there?

The thing is you agree with science when it doesn't conflict with the bible. Which is quite a bit because there's of course a lot of stuff in the bible that isn't science. I don't really scientifically agree with the bible at all because I don't think it has any facts or that there's any evidence of truth in it.

Some people say that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate and therefore unauthentic, not possibly the inspired word of the Creator, Jehovah God. I have addressed these accusations and demonstrated them to be misunderstandings.

1. Was the Earth created in 6 literal days? No.

2. Was the flood possible? Yes.

3. Does the Bible say that the earth is flat? No.

4. Does the Bible say that bats are birds? No.

5. Does the Bible say that insects have four legs? No.

6. Does the Bible say that Rabbits chew their cud? Refection.

If you really think that I'm doing the equivalent of what I said you appear to be doing. Then I certainly beg to differ. The bible and science are too different. But where do you get your facts from really? I don't recommend only accepting most or some scientific facts and then reject any that conflicts with your 2000+ old holy book.

Since you are criticising the Bible where do you get your facts from in doing so?

You will notice that I have said in the past that I don't think that science actually does conflict with the Bible. I am trying to demonstrate this but I can't even get any of you guys to tell me what a picture of some sculls are, you are so confident in your facts!

---

You point out errors with the bible yourself and still cling to it as historically accurate/factual/true? Daystar, you refuse to accept any evidence that could possible cast doubt on your Bible, so how could anything prove that it was a myth?

Can you point out where it is not historically accurate/factual/true?

I refuse no evidence at all, hell, I am trying to get you to provide evidence and you - none of you - seem able to do it. You want big long article of Bible facts, I can do that, but I am here trying to get you guys to show me where science conflicts with the Bible.

I might as well ask the cat!