Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

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

Stats

Views
3,308 (6 today)
Favourites
265 (who?)
Comments
336
Downloads
9
×
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:
 
:iconbcollins39302:
bcollins39302 Featured By Owner 5 days ago  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 5 days ago  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 4 days ago
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 4 days ago  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 4 days ago
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
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2014
Not so open minded that my brain falls out, no. This is fantasy, not science. 
Reply
:iconcorvus-the-snark:
Corvus-the-Snark Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Too late

Concerning some areas of science, I don't think there is any difference
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2014
Creationism isn't science. It's about as scientific as the Loch Ness Monster. Kept alive by the wishing a of gullible people. 
Reply
:iconjustcallmezoola:
JustCallMeZoola Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I love this stamp so much.
Reply
:iconwalagu:
Walagu Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2013
 really wish you'd talk to a real scientist. Science cannot prove nor disprove anything related to religion. And using it as a way to insult somebody is childish.
Reply
Add a Comment: