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:
 
: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
: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
:iconhk-0391:
HK-0391 Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2015   Digital Artist
Oh, and a snake talking perfect Hebrew. :wtf: revamp 
Reply
:iconbcollins39302:
bcollins39302 Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2015  Student Digital Artist
I would disagree with "there is no science in one language on earth". There is an entire field of cognitive linguistics that operates on the hypothesis that all humans speak the same language in the Deep Structure or underlying representation of our brains, and that it is then changed as it comes to the surface representation by cultural, human, memory, articulatory, and markedness factors... among other things.

There are also historical linguists who adopt the Nostratic Theory that Proto-Indo-European, Kartovelian, Basque, Proto Sinetic, Proto Finno Ugaritic, Proto Altaic, Proto Semetic and the indigenous languages of North America all formed one ancient super family (excluding the Pama Nyungan and Sub-Saharan families like Khoi-San and Bantu).

If there was one language in that sense it would probably predate humans, and Neanderthals, as they also likely had language (they have the FOX2P gene and tools much to advanced and consistent (indicating training) to have not had recursive syntax)
Reply
:iconerror404namenotfound:
Error404namenotfound Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2015  Student General Artist
*Enjoys flamewar*
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015  Student Writer
No one with half a brain actually thinks of the Bible as a science book.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
Then I suppose that 60% of the USA doesn't have half a brain, because most of them think those events happened. And all Christians that I know of think some of those happened (like Jesus dividing fishes and loaves into equal parts ex nihilo.) 
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2015  Student Writer
That is a different matter. I said a science book. I believe that a lot of things in the Bible literally happened, but I maintain that a lot of parts didn't and weren't meant to be in to begin with.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2015
I disagree (at least the bit that it wasn't meant to be taken literally) but I've been down that conversations road. Suffice to say most Christians in my country feel that the bible is scientifically accurate and, when they butt heads, that it's science that's wrong. Not the bible. I think they're foolish, like the men who wrote the bible to begin with. 
Reply
:iconbcollins39302:
bcollins39302 Featured By Owner Edited Feb 27, 2015  Student Digital Artist
That whole idea that Genesis is literal not allegorical developed over the last few hundred years by British and American protestants. Even St. Augustine thought it was allegorical 1800 years ago. In the 1100 the Jewish scholar Maimonides said (essentially) that any people who thinks it is literal should keep it to themselves. None of the books of the old testament reference Genesis at all.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Edited Feb 28, 2015
St. Augustine still believed in the literal creation of Adam and Eve and many other literal events which contradict our known world. 
 It didn't develop over the last few hundred years but had an upswing in both Christian and Jewish practice. All the same, most of what's on this stamp didn't occur in Genesis. 
Reply
:iconbcollins39302:
bcollins39302 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Ok. Yes he did believe in the literal creation of Adam and Eve, but he thought the 7 days of creation, the talking snake, and the Biblical Flood, were allegorical.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2015
His level of belief in literalism shifted over the years, and while he insisted the 7 day creation period was meant to be taken allegorically (for reasons I disagree with linguistically), he did believe the flood was historical with extra spiritual significance, and talked about such things like how the animals got to the ark from a purely historical view. 
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2015  Student Writer
Now you're just trying to be flat out insulting.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2015
You already called people 'half brained' in the first post. I'm just including more people than you. 
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2015  Student Writer
There is insulting people who think God fossils into the Earth to test our fiath, and then there is insulting people whose work is the basis of countless individuals life views.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2015
So it's ok to insult the beliefs of people so long as it's a smaller number? Or just if they have an interpretation that's different from yours?
I think the bible is a detestable book, both lacking grounding in reality and ethicacy and that the world would probably be improved by forgetting it. If that's too much insult for anyone to bear, I'll refer them to another stamp.
 You need a backbone by i-stamp
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconthedreamvista:
TheDreamVista Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2015  Student General Artist
I totally disagree what you've said.
Reply
:iconmastarmudkip:
MastarMudkip Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
I don't think your fellow "scientists" can understand what you're saying. There's no BLEEPS and BLOOPS and SpongeBob Production Music playing.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2015
Less than 1% of scientists that are creationists, and creationism has been ruled unscientific both academically and by trial. If anyone should have quotation marks around their professional title, I think we both know which ones should. 
Reply
:iconyudrontheglatorian:
yudrontheglatorian Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
that´s why they are called wonders!
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2014
I call them something else. Fables. 
Reply
:iconyudrontheglatorian:
yudrontheglatorian Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
well, i don´t.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2014
K. 
Reply
:iconi-am-the-cold:
I-Am-The-Cold Featured By Owner Edited Nov 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Of course there is a 13 foot tall race. The Titans XD
Reply
:iconsumma2201:
summa2201 Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2014
hmm 
Reply
:iconidreamofthewind:
IDreamOfTheWind Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Do you need science to explain EVERYTHING?
Reply
:iconcellularstructure:
CellularStructure Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2014
Yeah, you kind of do.
Reply
:iconidreamofthewind:
IDreamOfTheWind Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Not necessarily. How do you explain love?
Reply
:iconcypselurus:
Cypselurus Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Chemicals, hormones, etc. 
Reply
:iconidreamofthewind:
IDreamOfTheWind Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Chemicals and hormones have nothing to do with how you feel. They simply register how you feel.
Reply
:iconvonrabenherz:
VonRabenherz Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
No, they do not. The biochemical reactions in the brain are what causes emotions, thoughts and everything else. We do not understand everything about this yet, we do not fully understand how this works yet, but we do know with certainty that it does.

It may sound preposterous to the uneducated ear. "How could simple chemical reactions be the cause of all that?" The thing is ... those chemical reactions are in no way "simple". The brain is one of the - if not <the single> - most complex systems we know.
Reply
:iconidreamofthewind:
IDreamOfTheWind Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
And how did the brain come to be? How could something like nature, without a mind of its own, devise such a complex organ?
Reply
:iconvonrabenherz:
VonRabenherz Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Simple. Through evolution. Simple multi-cell organisms developed specified cells over time that were used to organize and control, giving them an advantage. A cluster of those cells would be more advantageous than only a few, so organisms with more of them were better able to survive. It grew from there, ever increasing in volume and complexity over millennia upon millennia.

No mind is needed to create complexity, the proof of this is all around us. It only becomes a problem if you realize this while already being completely convinced that everything must have been made by a supernatural deity, because reasons. If you hold no such presuppositions, there is no problem.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconcypselurus:
Cypselurus Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
They cause you to feel that way...which is why your heart beats faster when you're talking to the person you like and so forth.

But I'm curious- how would you explain it?
Reply
:iconidreamofthewind:
IDreamOfTheWind Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
It's a feeling to do something for someone or something else, whether it may be as small as thought or large as marriage, and it's a desire to choose the someone or something over your own desires. It's all very hard to explain. :)
Reply
:iconcypselurus:
Cypselurus Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Ahh okay :) Yeah, that works~
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconnati11184:
nati11184 Featured By Owner Aug 7, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm Christian and I agree :nod:
Reply
:iconretniapple:
Retniapple Featured By Owner Edited Aug 1, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Oh my. Looking down at all these comments about people trying to push their religion into you is a little... rude. I believe in the Big Bang theory (followed by the steady state theory), but I think it's wrong for people to force other people to believe in faith or science. Plus, there is a type of bug that walks in water. :P
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2014
'Large mass objects failing to break surface tension' would have been too long. ;)
Reply
:iconretniapple:
Retniapple Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
plus there actually WAS a real, nonfictional guy who ran on water. who actually lived. who wasn't in any religion. (oh my. this sounds so criticizing, but it isn't meant to be in any way. oWo)
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2014
Nah. No human has run on water without the assistance of flotation devices or slight of hand. 
Reply
:iconretniapple:
Retniapple Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
oh... Then what guy told me that?! AAAHHHH stupid youtube. XD
Reply
:iconronaldthezombie:
RonaldTheZombie Featured By Owner May 30, 2014
It's not said to be scientifically accurate, it's said to be HISTORICALLY accurate!
Reply
:iconvonrabenherz:
VonRabenherz Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
No, many christians, especially creationists, also claim that it is indeed scientifically accurate.

But that said, Stephen King's novel 11/22/63 is also historically accurate, especially its setting. That doesn't mean, however, that some guy in 2011 actually traveled back in time to try and prevent the assassination of JFK.
Similar things go for the bible.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner May 30, 2014
In some cases yes, in some cases no. There are several incongruousness too. There's no evidence of Jewish slaves wandering around Egypt. The flood (as described) didn't happen. Many cities fortold to fall never did. Things like that.
Reply
:iconcorvus-the-snark:
Corvus-the-Snark Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Actually that is science, your just not open-minded enough
Reply
:iconjaguar24:
Jaguar24 Featured By Owner May 10, 2014
I prefer real science than bible "science"
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download GIF 99 × 56




Details

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

Stats

Views
3,499
Favourites
266 (who?)
Comments
341
Downloads
9
×