Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Bible Science by i-stamp Bible Science by i-stamp
There's been a lot of stamps lately about the bible being scientifically accurate.
They must've been reading a different bible than I did.

This is but a small selection of myths and legends you see in every religion but some only find believable in their religion. That's faith for you.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmihtimak:
MihTimak Featured By Owner May 17, 2017
Yes, I agree that the Bible is a false book, but could you, please, write all this stamp in the description? I cannot read so fast.
Reply
:iconthefreezelcreepercnl:
TheFreezeLCreeperCNL Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2017  Student Traditional Artist
It says:
"There is no science in:
Ressurrection by touching bones, one language on Earth, a tree tall enough to be seen by the whole world, Blindness healed by a touch, a talking donkey, rainbows are not as old as water and sunshine, stopping a storm by yelling at it, a talking serpent, 13 foot tall race, walking on water, a global floodbirds before reptiles, 600 old men, dividing fishes and loaves to parts equal to the original"
All in caps
Reply
:iconmihtimak:
MihTimak Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2017
Thank you very much. I hope that other readers will also be thankful to you for this reply.
Reply
:iconjolteonlove33:
Jolteonlove33 Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2017  Student Digital Artist
There are talking donkeys. Just look at Trump, he's an ass.
Reply
:iconartizdak:
Artizdak Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2016
I'm afraid there is proof of talking donkeys. Look no further than Callafornier.
Reply
:iconghostlymanners:
GhostlyManners Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
And in Shrek?
Reply
:iconcorrupttempest:
CorruptTempest Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Lmao.
Reply
:iconsafeinternetprotocol:
Science is  everywhere (i know) :)
Reply
:iconwakaflockaflame1:
wakaflockaflame1 Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Actually, yes there is....there is just not enough on any of it to go on by.

Example. They say JC healed blindness by touch. how do you know he didn't put some kinda medicine in the person's eyes, but all his followers just saw was him putting his hands over the person's eyes?
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2016
How do we know Jesus wasn't an alien with super technology? How do we know all the gods of all the religions aren't real vying alien warlords?
The question's not a relevant one. I'm talking about what's in the stories, not what we can insert between the lines.
Reply
:iconwakaflockaflame1:
wakaflockaflame1 Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
That's pretty much my point.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2016
That there's no reason to believe there's any science in the bible? Because the bible doesn't actually describe any science and any addition to it would be our own?
Reply
:iconwakaflockaflame1:
wakaflockaflame1 Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2016
But it does disprove the historicity of Genesis, and many bible claims.
Reply
:iconwakaflockaflame1:
wakaflockaflame1 Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Like what? (Don't you dare fucking say the flood, cause for all we know, he could have just flooded the area, but it SEEMED like the whole world to the people living there at the time)
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2016
First of all, the bible doesn't describe a local flood. Because the mountains of Ararat where the ark set down in the story are too high for a local flood to cover. If they weren't covered, would have been clearly visible to Noah and the doves he released (which wouldn't have bothered coming back to the boat.) The bible describes a global event. It's just also wrong.
It's also wrong about the order in which things came about, (Genesis 1:3–2:3) such as our sun before other stars, light before light emitting objects, plants before the moon, grass before trees, birds before land animals, whales before land animals. All are wrong. That's just a taste, more examples in the actual stamp text and beyond.
Reply
:iconhates-olives:
Hates-olives Featured By Owner Jun 25, 2016
Remember, it's your beliefs, you believe what you want..
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Jun 25, 2016
Nobody stopping you from believing what you want. But I have scientific reasons for saying bible literalism conflicts with science. 
Reply
:iconslimey-slime:
Slimey-Slime Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2016
"One Language on Earth"

Since when the fuck did the bible had ONE LANGUAGE? 
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2016
According to the bible there was one universal language prior to the Tower of Babel.
Reply
:iconslimey-slime:
Slimey-Slime Featured By Owner Jun 24, 2016
To one tower. ONE TOWER.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Jun 24, 2016
Nope, that's not what bible scholars and Tanakh scholars believe. Rather that Babel used the Adamic tongue, and the only language until after the event. The bible itself says in Genesis 11:1 "And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. "
Reply
:iconslimey-slime:
Slimey-Slime Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2016
uh english and egyption
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2016
...What?
Reply
:iconpinecoon:
Pinecoon Featured By Owner Jun 25, 2016  Hobbyist Artist
Clearly they don't read the bible, I'm actually atheist and even I knew there was originally one language. 

I think it was Hebrew but I may be wrong.
Reply
:iconwakaflockaflame1:
wakaflockaflame1 Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Hebrew? My dad has the thought it was English xD
Reply
:iconpinecoon:
Pinecoon Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2016  Hobbyist Artist
Nah, English was one of the "devided" languages.
Reply
:iconsataniccrucifix666:
SatanicCrucifix666 Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2015   Traditional Artist
This is so true.
Reply
:iconlostatseaoff:
LostAtSeaOFF Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
*Secretly hoping for butthurt people*
Reply
:iconkoikoto:
Koikoto Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2015  Student Digital Artist
*sits and eats popcorn while debate war goes down below*
Reply
:icontheholysatanicone666:
TheHolySatanicOne666 Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I shall join you.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2015
I believe the whole story of Mary and Joseph was fabricated and that science is better off without the presumption of a designer. :shrug:

Incidentally I find Lewis to be pretty disingenuous in his writing, like his Trilemma (or false trilemma) where he thinks non-believers can only conclude Jesus was either mad, a liar or divine. Where the obvious answer is they think none of these, but that Jesus as a historical character, if he even existed as such, doesn't resemble the bible character at all. But was built up by Rumor and fervor for a new contemporary religion for its time. 
Reply
:iconpathwaytobliss:
pathwaytobliss Featured By Owner Aug 6, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
No really? so If all prophecies fulfilled? How is Not' God's words?
Reply
:iconacitorianscoria:
AcitorianScoria Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2015  Student Writer
13 foot tall humans are impossible. Their bones would have too much pressure. They would die at the age of 16 and hardly be able to reproduce. And somehow, in the Bible these guys were immortal.
Reply
:iconlostatseaoff:
LostAtSeaOFF Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Giantism does exist, but there has never been a recorded 13 foot tall human before (The tallest human ever recorded was 11 feet and 2 inches tall)
Reply
:iconacitorianscoria:
AcitorianScoria Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2015  Student Writer
Children born with giantism only live about 17-24 years because of bone structure. Human bone aren't able to support that size and weight.
Reply
:iconlostatseaoff:
LostAtSeaOFF Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
My mistake; they were 8"1 (According to an artic all I read) 
Reply
:iconschwarzerritter:
SchwarzerRitter Featured By Owner Jul 7, 2015
Yes, that stamp is absolutely correct.
In other news: Stones are heavy and water is wet.
Reply
:iconhectordefendi-light:
HectorDefendi-Light Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
LOL
Reply
:icongriswaldterrastone:
GriswaldTerrastone Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2015
Or evolution. It is obvious we did NOT get here that way, and there is ample evidence that it was all a lie. For starters, there is no "geologic column," that is just make-believe, and simply looking at variations within a species, as Darwin did, does NOT prove macroevolution- it's like saying someone driving north out of Poughkeepsie MUST end up in Canada. It was a ridiculous and illogical conclusion.

What makes me wonder is the circular reasoning used- index fossils are dated by the strata they are found in, which are dated by the index fossils found within them. The way science often behaves, it may as well be a religion.

And no, I am not a Christian. NOBODY knows how we got here, and as long as science's own version of Genesis is crammed down our throats, we'll never figure it out. Wouldn't be the first time; look up what happened to Doctor Semmelweis.

This week I'll visit my friend in a nursing home, being blinded and torn apart by diabetes. He is no better off today than he would have been in 1985. I see cancer patients there- same thing.

 I'll have to pay my fuel (oil) bill, and fill the car up with gasoline. They are going to build more coal plants in Europe. Where is all the "progress" we were promised in any significant way? We may as well be back in 1985 for the most part; at least there was a better economy then!

It seems the more science is worshiped, the less advancement there is. The  former Soviet Union was proof of this.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2015
Oh man, this argument takes me back. Like it was cribbed from a creationist site that hasn't changed its angle since the 80's, before microbiology and genetics became an integral part of evolutionary study. Neverminding that there is no such thing as macro and microevolution, that nobody has ever demonstrated a barrier in the same exact process which would prohibit small change from adding up to big change. Where and why does it stop? That's not evidenced in any part of biology. We have in fact witnessed speciation events, where small changes added to two distinct populations with a common ancestor being genetically incompatible. Viola, new species. The same method of genetic diversification and population with genetic drift would be equally applicable to family, genus and class level taxonomy.
Rather than your analogy, saying microevolution happens but macroevolution doesn't is like saying mountain formation via tectonic movement is impossible because in the entire human history we've only see hills grow. That there's some barrier between hills and mountains and surely we wouldn't ever get to the latter for 'reasons.'

Neverminding that stratigraphy is only one of many dating methods (radiometric dating requires no stratigraphy as you can date from the fossilized remains itself, which gives us an absolute age. We actually usually do both, comparative and absolute dating). You don't even need to talk about fossils to set up relationships in an order of common descent. We can, and have, made the argument based on pure genetics. viewpure.com/qh7OclPDN_s. This is, in fact, one of the best way to set up the phylogenetic tree of life.
So, I'm sorry you've seemingly missed out on decades of scientific breakthroughs just because some methods in some completely unrelated venues are still more economical and efficient. But perhaps that's just your problem. Maybe stop reading 1980's Christian pamphlets on biology? (you not being a Christian hasn't seem to stop you from using their bad arguments.)
Reply
:icongriswaldterrastone:
GriswaldTerrastone Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2015
Typical arrogance. I do not need to be a kid in catholic school questioning creationalism to know what would happen when I just have to meet an evolutionalist: it's the same response. No, I never read any such pamphlet and don't even know what you were talking about.

Your problem is that Darwinian evolution has been crammed down your throat so long that you are no different from a religious fanatic- you are just blindly supporting what YOU want to believe, because it is your religion's version of Genesis. By replacing Creationalism with Darwinian evolution people like you have merely replaced one lie with another. Give a religious person your so-called "evidence" and watch him use it in a way that will "prove" creationalism. I could use it to prove that we were dropped off by space aliens a-la "Star Trek."

Just a couple of months ago there was a news article about some fossil evidence found. What did the scientists say? How they were going to apply it to evolution. That story died down real quick, because surprise- it did not work.

Guess what? You do NOT take any evidence and force them into a theory; you build a theory based on facts.

If I did it your way, I never would have gotten the crummy netbook to stream Youtube videos a few years ago, because then I had the theory that Youtube "Flash" was SWF. Only when I found out that was not the case and started examining FLV, MP4, and 3GP did I finally get it to work, but that only happened because I was not a fanatic and realized the initial theory was WRONG. I may soon have IE6 acting as a pseudo-HTML5 browser.

You cannot argue with the fact that it was ridiculous for Darwin- who had an ax to grind against religion, as did Lyell- to look at variation within a species and claim "oh look, one species became another!" Ever since then science adopted that theory and refuses to admit it was wrong; your "evidence" is always based on the assumption that it was right, and therefore will be interpreted in whatever way will prove your initial belief to be right. What happened to the dinosaurs, the sabre-tooth tigers, the wooly mammoths? Notice how the explanations they come up with are only those that support the belief in evolution?

 Just look at a Victorian picture book on dog breeds and then look at their modern counterparts to see change- but they are still dogs, which are still based on wolves, are still pack animals with alpha, beta, etc. hierarchy, still carnivores, etc. and they can still interbreed with wolves- in spite of millenia of human action. They NEVER became an entirely different species. And for all of the millions of fossils found, somehow the "missing links" still haven't been found. Likewise crop plants.

The hypocrisy annoys me. Scientists smirk at people who purchase lottery tickets while they themselves believe in something that would have required so many amazing coincidences that Lotto-54 (I live in NY) would be like a coin toss. Animal research is another example: evolutionalists always like to connect us to primates yet see no problem with torturing them in labs- because apparently we are not so connected that that would be immoral. And is it not interesting that such research is often wrong because what may hurt humans do not harm animals? Different enough to justify such cruelty; same enough to preach evolution.

And of course there would be genetic similarities- we are in the same world! So there would have to be certain boundaries; if genetic engineering could create something that could only exist in a light-gravity heavy-CO2 environment with heavy gamma solar radiation how long would it last in our environment? To live it would have to have some things in common no matter where it came from.

Hell, one can say we evolved from fire, because that's what this world must have been once- a flaming mass. And if the "Big Bang" means nothing definable existed beforehand, we in effect sprang out of...nothing.

And given the talk about "global warming" and the rising seas from it, I wonder if the story of Noah's Ark may have been a reference to some sudden cataclysm long ago- like from a sudden solar flareup. By the way, do you remember the talk not too long ago about...global COOLING? That was the biggie then. I do not believe in global warming, I believe in global climate change, and by explaining it that way I've gotten many people around here to at least consider it.

(Note that any uppercase words are meant to be in italics, beyond the obvious acronyms)

You cannot go around accusing religious people of self-rightous fanaticism if you yourself are so rigid on evolution. I've locked horns with both groups, and they are no different.

Consider it.
Reply
:iconcoughin05:
Coughin05 Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2015
I hope you read the following comment that i-stamp left. I hope you soaked it in, and I hope it had an impact on you. I wish you the best, and I'm sorry that you've been so mislead.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2015
"I do not need to be a kid in catholic school questioning creationalism to know what would happen when I just have to meet an evolutionalist: it's the same response. No, I never read any such pamphlet and don't even know what you were talking about."
I doubt you don't know what I'm talking about, especially using terms like 'evolutionist,' which is such a creationist colloquialism it should practically be trademarked. There is no such thing as an evolutionist, it makes about as much sense as a gravitationalist. There are evolutionary biologists and evolutionary biology. If you didn't have some background of reading creationist crap, I'll eat my hat.

"Darwinian evolution"

Incidentally, evolutionary biology has about as much to do with Darwin as physics does with Newton. Newtonian physics was largely replaced by the general theory of relativity and bears little resemblance to what Newton would have believed in his time. Similarly, Darwin had no idea about genetics and advanced microbiology and you need not reference Darwin's works at all to substantiate, as I already pointed out, the phylogenetic tree and common descent. So yes, this whole rant of yours reads like someone who doesn't have the slightest idea of what he's talking about, so out of touch with actual biology that it might as well be out of a creationist pamphlet.

"Just a couple of months ago there was a news article about some fossil evidence found. What did the scientists say? How they were going to apply it to evolution. That story died down real quick, because surprise- it did not work."

How very vague. Evolution is not paleontology and paleontology is not evolution. Things may change in taxonomic levels, we might adjust individual tenants within evolution to conform with new evidence, but your beef with evolution is ill placed. If you were honest, you'd have as big of a beef with gravity, since we still don't know how subatomic structures fit in with universal gravitation and do not seem to conform to the same equations. 

As I said, numerous times now, you can demonstrate evolutionary biology with pure genetics. Needing no paleontology at all. Yet you've failed to actually address that argument. And keep on trying to move the goalpost to where you're more familiar with, which is a creationist-like 30 year out-of-date view of a strawman of evolution.

"If I did it your way, I never would have gotten the crummy netbook to stream Youtube videos a few years ago, because then I had the theory that Youtube "Flash" was SWF. Only when I found out that was not the case and started examining FLV, MP4, and 3GP did I finally get it to work, but that only happened because I was not a fanatic and realized the initial theory was WRONG. I may soon have IE6 acting as a pseudo-HTML5 browser."

So you made an incorrect assumption based on no actual observation, you got hung up on it. And this relates to evolution...because you say so, with your quite clearly extremely limited information of what evolution even is.

"You cannot argue with the fact that it was ridiculous for Darwin- "

See second paragraph.

"Just look at a Victorian picture book on dog breeds"

No, because a very small and very short selection of selective breeding is not comparative to millions of years of generation undergoing much more nuanced environmental selections. It's a false analogy. Besides, as I've also already said, we've seen numerous new species events, especially in short maturing staged organisms. From microorganisms to plants to insects to fish. Hell, we've even seen a unicellular yeast evolve into a multicellular organism.

"Animal research is another example: evolutionalists always like to connect us to primates yet see no problem with torturing them in labs"

Not sure how this has anything to do with the subject but it wasn't people like you who placed ethical boundaries on animal testing and why invasive primate testing is mostly a thing of the past (and hollywood movies). It was scientists, particularly those the likes of Jane Goodall and other animal behaviorists.

"And of course there would be genetic similarities- we are in the same world! "

I take it you didn't actually watch the video. 

I'm done. You obviously haven't done your homework and you're not going to. The only self-righteousness I see here is from you, as you seem to be pretending you have some huge insight that scientists and academics don't have yet clearly hasn't even learned more than a grade school student about the subject. You're not going to be very convincing this way.

Consider it. 
Reply
:iconcoughin05:
Coughin05 Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2015
Fuck yeah~
Reply
:iconmrdrvinwoody:
MrDrVinwoody Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Damn str8, m8.
Reply
:iconhk-0391:
HK-0391 Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2015   Digital Artist
Oh, and a snake talking perfect Hebrew. :wtf: revamp 
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
February 17, 2012
Image Size
228 KB
Resolution
99×56
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
4,956
Favourites
288 (who?)
Comments
395
Downloads
10
×