Science confirms the Bible?

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, apologist attempts to send atheist on fools errand rather than owning up to his own beliefs. I am jacks complete lack of surprise.

[DeistPaladin]

anyone have any comments on this?

OK, conclusion time. Let's run down the count here:

#Fails and WTFs: 7
# Dubious and Half-Truths: 6
# Incredible! Divine Revelation is the only possible explanation: Zero

Now on the other side of the ledger...

Here is a list, provided by Steve Wells of the SAB, of contradictions or problems with the Bible in light of science or history, which serve as contra-evidence to the claim that it is a book reflecting divine revelation.

Too long a list for you? OK, let's just stick with page 1 of the Bible. Reading that first page (chapter 1 of Genesis, perhaps less depending on the size of the print), we learn that:

• Waters existed prior to the birth of the universe
  
• "Day" was created three days before the sun.
  
• The sky is a dome
  
• There are waters above that sky dome
  
• Grass and plants were created a day before the sun was created
  
• The stars were all created at the same time as our sun.
  
• The moon is a source of light
  

Yeah, good solid science that could only have come from divine revelation!

Have I adequately dispensed with the "scientific-miracles-in-the-Bible" nonsense?

[DeistPaladin]

OK, now on to the next batch of crap...

along the same vein I had a friend tell me the Bible is true because of all the fulfilled prophecies,that there were 500 witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. and "Why would Jesus die for a lie?"

Fulfilled prophecies of the Bible largely rely on obtuse interpretations of cherry picked verses wrenched out of context retrofitted post hoc to historical events (or claimed historical events) under a heavy cover of confirmation bias. If you're not familiar with logical fallacies, I can tell you the same twisted thinking is used in Horoscopes, Nostradamus predictions, the prophecies of other religions and many other forms of woo.

If this were not enough reason to soundly reject Biblical prophecy as proof of the divine origins of the Bible, there are other problems with specific prophecies often cited by apologists:

1. OT Prophecies cited in Matthew often turn out to be gross misrepresentations or distortions of the OT. Most famously, "behold a virgin shall conceive" is a reference to Isaiah, specifically a chapter where the child is born at that time (several hundred years before Jesus) and relates to events of that time. It is NOT a prophecy of Jesus or any later messiah.

2. Many other "fulfilled prophecies" rely on the Bible itself for confirmation. In essence, the Bible predicted X would happen and then reported that X happened. Ta da!

As for the 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, this is a bold claim by Paul and not one supported elsewhere in the Bible. Acts 1:15 claims there were 120 Christians after Jesus departed from them, some 40 days after preaching to the people. The Gospels themselves depict a Jesus who departed into Heaven in front of the disciples rather than out in public in front of hundreds, and this was done either the day of the resurrection or a week after the resurrection, depending on which version you read.

Regardless, the claim of 500 nameless witnesses is a bare assertion.

Oh, by the way, God just spoke to me today in front of 1,000 witnesses. No, I can't name any names for you. What? You don't believe me?

Finally, there's the "die for a lie" canard. There are two problems with this apology:

1. It uses folklore to prove mythology.
2. Yes, it happens all the time. Don't ask me why but it does.

On the first, one could just as easily "prove" the story of Superman by claiming that Lois Lane was willing to be carried off the top of a building in Superman's arms. Why would she have done this if she didn't think he could fly? Lois Lane was a smart woman and a reporter. Surely she wouldn't have been so foolish to let herself be carried off the top of a building unless she had good reason to think Superman was who he said he was. And wasn't her life transformed by him? Blah blah blah...

The details of early Christian persecution are sketchy, mixed in with a lot of hyperbolic Church propaganda seeking to create a history of martyrs. However, even accepting that early Christians were persecuted, the argument relies on them not just being killed for their beliefs but, in Hollywood form, holding their heads high, refusing to recant, eagerly looking forward to their heavenly union with their Lord.

Outside Hollywood and Christian propaganda, we have no evidence of this. In fact, some of the historical references to Christian persecution, such as the letters of Pliny the Younger to Trajan, suggest that the Christians DID recant and renounce Christ under the lash.

But even if early Christians did walk calmly to their deaths, heads held high and orchestras swelling off camera, does that sort of thing happen often?

All too often. David Koresh. Jim Jones. The Heavens Gate cult.

All these are current examples of stupid cult leaders and followers alike dying for foolish ideas that they should know are lies. And yet they die for them all the same. And these are modern examples in our supposedly more rational society. Imagine how it might have been in a more primitive time. Stupid cultists and their leaders die for lies all the time, throughout history. To suggest either any early Christian persecution or any fanatical resolve on the early Christian's part proves anything is classic special pleading.

Got any other crap for me to shovel?

[Brian37]

I hate that "Why would they die for a lie"? Simple. Why did credulous Germans follow Hitler? Because he sold them a utopia. Worked really well for them for a while, not so much for the 50,000,000 million people worldwide and 6 million Jews who died because he successfully marketed his twisted crap.

Be weary even with TV ads that sell you a quick solution or a utopia. The same crap that allows religion to work, is the same shit that makes "magic" work. The same thing all cons work. If it sounds too good to be true. If you want to believe it badly enough you will, and that is when you will find your wallet/brain missing.

They never consider that the other option. They buyers were conned because they didn't know better. Or the writers simply didn't understand the nature of reality and were simply competing for power without realizing that was really what they were doing.

It is a unfortunate mundane reality for humans to create superstitous reasons for their good fortune, so even when they merely write something that has a popular meme and get lucky, they confuse that success with being right.

[Doubting Thomas]

Don't be lazy go look it up I'm not your personal slave.

Burden of proof, moron.

Coincidentally this is the same tactic used by conspiracy theorists when backed into a corner and they know they've lost the argument. "The proof is out there, do the research!" No, you're the one making the assertions, you do the research to back up your claims if you ever want to be taken seriously.

[Ryantology]

[*]Grass and plants were created a day before the sun was created

Grass and seed-bearing plants, specifically. If you know anything about the history of plant evolution, you might know that both grass and seed-bearing plants are both quite recent (yet, nowhere near simultaneous) developments relative to the overall time that plants have existed on earth. And the sun was around ten times as long as the oldest of these.

You might ask why God made plants initially not need sun or rain, then eventually need sun but not rain, then later both were required.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or why, after having handled all of this, deigned to backpedal on his work and fill the gaps (that would only have become existent - by his creative act in this regard) between at some later undefined and un-addressed date....thereby providing us with such an elaborate and diverse example of just how all this could have been accomplished without his interference in the first place.....

[little_monkey]

• Waters existed prior to the birth of the universe
  
• "Day" was created three days before the sun.
  
• The sky is a dome
  
• There are waters above that sky dome
  
• Grass and plants were created a day before the sun was created
  
• The stars were all created at the same time as our sun.
  
• The moon is a source of light
  

Sounds like a good sci-fi novel. Is it on amazon.com?

[Cyberman]

Sure is - and some of the reviews are amazing!

http://www.qualitynonsense.com/199/top-1...e-reviews/

[DeistPaladin]

Sounds like a good sci-fi novel. Is it on amazon.com?

Well, I wouldn't say it's good literature by any means. Pacing problems, two-dimensional characters with poorly explained motivations, far too much time spent on petty details, too much repititon,

...not to mention the over-reliance on the Deux ex Machina.