Religion & Spirituality - 23 June 2006

There are Rastifarians, and I'm a member of the Church of the Universe, both groups use pot as a sacrament. If the US and Canada state that RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is part of their charters, why are we PERSECUTED and PROSECUTED?

Who is anyone to tell me how I should worship GOD?

2006-06-23 14:07:23 · 13 answers · asked by doctor_johnnie_jointroller 4

Because i dont and think its stupid and i dont believe in global warming, i dont think it will for hundreds of millions of years

2006-06-23 14:05:56 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous

I think it's funny.

2006-06-23 14:04:17 · 8 answers · asked by blondestar134 2

Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines
In 1950, Wilfred Le Gros Clark published a paper which definitively settled the question of whether the australopithecines were apes or not. He performed a morphological study (based on the shape and function) of teeth and jaws, since these formed most of the fossil evidence. By studying human and modern ape fossils, Le Gros Clark came up with a list of eleven consistent differences between humans and apes. Looking at A. africanus and robustus (the only australopithecine species then known), he found that they were humanlike rather than apelike in every characteristic. Judged by the same criteria, A. afarensis falls somewhere between humans and apes, and possibly closer to the apes (Johanson and Edey 1981). White et al. (1994) did not judge A. ramidus by these criteria, but it is clear that ramidus is even more chimpanzee-like than afarensis. The ramidus arm bones also display a mixture of hominid and ape characteristics.
Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on measurements) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate in the 1950's, and his position was abandoned by everyone else (Johanson and Edey 1981). Creationists like to quote his opinions as if they were still a scientifically acceptable viewpoint.

Charles Oxnard (1975), in a paper that is widely cited by creationists, claimed, based on his multivariate analyses, that australopithecines are no more closely related, or more similar, to humans than modern apes are. Howell et al.(1978) criticized this conclusion on a number of grounds. Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not. Finally, there is "an overwhelming body of evidence", based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes.

Creationists often cite Oxnard's qualifications, and use of computers to perform his calculations, with approval. This is special pleading; many other scientists are equally qualified, and also use computers. Gish (1993) states that "[a] computer doesn't lie, [a] computer doesn't have a bias". True enough, but the results that come out of a computer are only as good as the data and assumptions that go in. In this case, the primary assumption would seem to be that Oxnard's methods are the best method of determining relationships. This seems doubtful, given some of the other unusual results of Oxnard's study (1987). For example, he places Ramapithecus as the ape closest to humans, and Sivapithecus as closely related to orang-utans, even though the two are so similar that they are now considered to be the same species of Sivapithecus.

Less controversially, Oxnard also claims that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans. Creationists sometimes quote this conclusion in a highly misleading manner, saying Oxnard proved that australopithecines did not walk upright, and then adding, as an afterthought (or in Willis' (1987) case, not at all) "at least, not in the human manner".

Creationists are generally reluctant to accept that australopithecines, including Lucy, were bipedal. A statement by Weaver (1985) that "Australopithecus afarensis ... demonstrates virtually complete adaptation to upright walking" is dismissed by Willis (1987) as "a preposterous claim". Willis adds: "Many competent anthropologists have carefully examined these and other "Australopithicine" [sic] remains and concluded that Lucy could not walk upright."

Willis' evidence for this consists of a statement by Solly Zuckerman made in 1970; a 1971 statement from Richard Leakey that australopithecines "may have been knuckle-walkers", and a quote from Charles Oxnard about the relationship between humans, australopithecines and the apes. In fact, none of these quotes refer to Lucy. Two of them were made before Lucy, and A. afarensis, was even discovered (and the third was made very soon afterwards, before Lucy had been studied).

Even in 1970, Zuckerman's views had long since been largely abandoned. In what is obviously a fabrication, Willis says that Leakey "referred to Lucy as an ape who did not walk upright", three years before Lucy was discovered. Leakey was merely making a suggestion (about robust australopithecines) which he soon retracted, not stating a firm opinion, and he has since stated (1994) that Lucy "undoubtedly was a biped". Oxnard (1975; 1987) has some unorthodox opinions about the australopithecines, but the Oxnard quote supplied by Willis discusses neither bipedality nor A. afarensis. Elsewhere in the same paper that Willis refers to, Oxnard (1975) repeatedly mentions that australopithecines may have been bipedal, and he has since stated (1987) that the australopithecines, including Lucy, were bipedal.

Gish (1985) has a long discussion of the debate about Lucy's locomotion. He quotes extensively from Stern and Susman (1983), who list many apelike features of A. afarensis and argue that it spent a significant amount of time in the trees. As Gish admits, none of the scientists he mentions deny that Lucy was bipedal, but he goes on to suggest, with no evidence or support, that A. afarensis may have been no more bipedal than living apes, which are well adapted to quadrupedality and only walk on two legs for short distances. By contrast, the feet, knees, legs and pelvises of australopithecines are strongly adapted to bipedality. Gish's conclusion is strongly rejected by Stern and Susman, and, apparently, everyone else:

"That bipedality was a more fundamental part of australopithecine behavior than in any other living or extinct nonhuman primate is not in serious dispute."
"... we must emphasize that in no way do we dispute the claim that terrestrial bipedality was a far more significant component of the behavior of A. afarensis than in any living nonhuman primate." (Stern, Jr. and Susman 1983)

"The most significant features for bipedalism include shortened iliac blades, lumbar curve, knees approaching midline, distal articular surface of tiba nearly perpendicular to the shaft, robust metatarsal I with expanded head, convergent hallux (big toe), and proximal foot phalanges with dorsally oriented proximal articular surfaces. (McHenry 1994)

Gish writes as if showing that A. afarensis did not "walk upright in the human manner" is all that is needed to disqualify it as a human ancestor. But there is no reason that bipedality, when it first arose, had to be identical to human bipedality; that final step could have occurred later. As Stern and Susman (1983) state:

"In our opinion A. afarensis is very close to what can be called a "missing link". It possesses a combination of traits entirely appropriate for an animal that had traveled well down the road toward full-time bipedality ..."
Creationist John Morris writes:

"From the neck down, certain clues suggested to Johanson that Lucy walked a little more erect than today's chimps. This conclusion, based on his interpretation of the partial hip bone and a knee bone, has been hotly contested by many paleoanthropologists." (Morris 1994)
Almost everything in this quote is a distortion (Johanson's and Lucy's names are about the only exceptions). "Certain clues suggested" doesn't mention that the whole find screamed "bipedality" to every qualified scientist who looked at it. "a little more erect", when everyone believes that Lucy was fully erect. "the partial hip bone and a knee bone", when Lucy included almost a complete pelvis and leg (taking mirror imaging into account, and excluding the foot). "has been hotly contested", when no reputable paleoanthropologist denies that Lucy was bipedal. The debates are about whether she was also arboreal, and about how similar the biomechanics of her locomotion was to that of humans. Given that we have most of Lucy's leg and pelvis, one has to wonder what sort of fossil evidence it would take to convince creationists of australopithecine bipedality.
To support the idea that australopithecines are just apes, Parker says:

"In their critique of the Leakeys, Johanson and White (1980) noted: 'Modern chimpanzees, by this definition [Richard Leakey's] would be classified as A. africanus.' Apes after all?" (Morris and Parker 1982)
When the paper by Johanson and White is examined, it is apparent that Parker has taken their quote out of context in a way that almost reverses its meaning. Leakey did not call A. africanus a chimp, nor did Johanson and White accuse him of doing so. They criticized Leakey's definition because it was imprecise enough to also include chimps. Of course, such a criticism only makes sense if A. africanus is not a chimp.
In 1987, creationist Tom Willis accused Donald Johanson of fraud, claiming that the skeleton known as "Lucy" consisted of bones that had been found at two sites about 2.5 km (1.5 miles) apart. Willis had actually confused two separate finds which belong to the same species. (This was in spite of the fact that a best-selling book (Johanson and Edey 1981) has photos of both fossils: AL 129-1 is a right knee, while Lucy has a right femur and a left tibia.) This was a spectacular error which could hardly have been made by anyone who had done the most elementary research, but that didn't stop many other creationists from picking up the claim and repeating it. For a full history of this claim, read the talk.origins knee-joint FAQ file (Lippard 1997).

Creationists rarely address the issue of why australopithecines have a foramen magnum at the bottom of the skull. Gish (1985) criticizes Dart's reasoning that the Taung baby walked upright, based on the position of its foramen magnum. Gish correctly states that the position of the foramen magnum is closer in juvenile apes and humans than it is in adults (in apes, it moves backwards during growth), and concludes that Dart was unjustified in analyzing this feature on a juvenile skull. This is the same criticism that Dart originally faced from scientists, but Gish fails to mention that later evidence proved Dart's analysis correct and silenced his critics.

Creationists also rarely mention australopithecine teeth. Gish says that "[Dart] pointed out the many ape-like features of the skull, but believed that some features of the skull, and particularly of the teeth, were man-like". (Note the misleading implication that the apelike features really exist, while the humanlike ones are a figment of Dart's imagination.) Gish disputes this, pointing out that the molar teeth of africanus are extremely large. What Gish does not tell readers is that this is one of the few differences between them and human teeth. When the teeth of the Taung child could be properly examined, Dart's claim was strongly confirmed, and is now generally accepted:

"In fact, though the molars were larger than is now normal, most of the teeth [of the Taung child] could have belonged to a child of today." (Campbell 1988)

2006-06-23 14:00:04 · 7 answers · asked by pope 2

Creationist Arguments: Homo erectus
Exciting new evidence about Homo erectus, see below!
The only Homo erectus fossils mentioned by many creationists (Huse 1983; Morris and Parker 1982; Taylor 1992) are the Java Man and Peking Man fossils. Many creationists traditionally considered both to be apes, but Lubenow (1992) considers both human, and that is becoming the accepted opinion in creationist circles. There are even a few creationists who consider Java Man an ape and Peking Man a human, despite the fact that many books stress their very close similarity.
A few authors do mention other erectus fossils in passing. Morris suggests, although it is not clear which specimens he is referring to, that they are degenerate humans:

"It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment" (Morris 1974).
Gish (1985) suggests that many erectus fossils would have been attributed to Neandertal Man were it not for their supposed age, and hence probably also considers the erectus morphology, like that of the Neandertals, to be caused by disease.

There is no explanation of why these adverse conditions would cause H. erectus to be so physically powerful, and in fact many erectus may have been of average human size (see the entry on the Turkana Boy fossil). Nor is it explained why all human skulls over 500,000 years old are erectus, and why, given the number of modern people who face a poor diet and a hostile environment, no erectus specimens are found nowadays.

Bowden (1981) briefly discusses ER 3733, but so vaguely that it is difficult to determine whether he thinks it is an ape or a human! This fossil, despite massive brow ridges and other primitive features, is so complete and looks so human that it seems unlikely anyone would call it an ape (and no other creationists have done so). It seems equally unlikely that Bowden would call it a human, since he acknowledges its similarity to the Peking Man skulls which he claims are apes, and all of which are larger than 3733. Bowden escapes this dilemma by instead casting aspersions on the accuracy of ER 3733's reconstruction (almost all other creationists solve it by not mentioning ER 3733).

Bowden's even briefer mention of OH 9 is just as cryptic. He notes its similarities to both Pithecanthropus [ape] and a Neandertal [human] skull. In one sentence he refers to it as "surprisingly advanced", but the next paragraph starts: "Reviewing all these fossil apes, ...". Bowden's description of OH 9 makes it sound so intermediate in nature between apes and humans that, once again, it is difficult to decide what he thinks it is.

One Homo erectus specimen, the Turkana Boy, is recognized by Gish as human. Unavoidably, since it is an erectus skull attached to a body that is almost completely modern. Gish (1985), writing soon after it was discovered, cautiously suggests that except for the brain size, all major aspects of the skeleton are within the limits of Homo sapiens, and that were it not for the estimated age of 1.6 million years it would be assigned to that species. In a later assessment (1995) Gish says that the size and shape of the braincase and a few characteristics of the body were the only differences from a modern human. Menton (1988) similarly states that WT 15000 was classified as H. erectus only because of its age.

That is incorrect; the Turkana Boy has a typical erectus skull, differing from modern humans in many aspects other than brain size. It is more similar to 1470 (H. habilis), or to other erectus specimens such as the Peking Man braincases, than it is to modern humans. It is strikingly similar to the Peking Man reconstruction made by Weidenreich, which even Gish agrees looks to be "intermediate between the Anthropoid Apes and Man".

The skeletal differences are less obvious, but in combination they show a skeleton with small but significant differences from modern humans. The length of the neck and the neck-shaft angle in the femur are respectively "well over 3" and 5 standard deviations from the modern human norm (Brown et al. 1985). The boy was extraordinarily strong, and his spinal cord had less than half the cross-sectional area of ours (Walker and Shipman 1996). According to Richard Leakey, "practically every piece of bone shows minute but unquestionable differences from modern man" (Angela 1993). Gish stresses the skeletal similarities but ignores these differences.

Menton (1988) states that the Turkana Boy was like a modern human "except for certain details of the skull", and then adds that:

"He had a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges not unlike some races of modern man. Richard Leaky [sic] said that this boy would go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Menton 1988)
Menton has taken this quote out of context, omitting some text that significantly changes its meaning:
"Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Leakey and Walker 1985)
Are erectus and sapiens the same species?
Lubenow (1992) and Mehlert (1994) have argued that Homo erectus is similar enough to H. sapiens that it should be merged into it. For example, Lubenow quotes Wolpoff et al. (1984):
"In our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the Homo erectus/Homo sapiens boundary is arbitrary and use nonmorphological (i.e. temporal) criteria for determining it, or Homo erectus should be sunk [into H. sapiens]."
Wolpoff and his colleagues support what is known as the multiregional theory, which holds that populations of H. erectus throughout the world evolved together towards H. sapiens (as opposed to the "out of Africa" theory, which holds that one population of H. erectus gave rise to all modern humans).

Wolpoff et al. are not saying that H. erectus cannot be distinguished from modern humans; in fact they point out that it "on the average shows clear morphological distinctions from Homo sapiens". Nor do they dispute that H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus. Wolpoff and his colleagues explain clearly why they propose that H. erectus should not be a separate species:

We regard the species distinction between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as being problematic. The issue we address stems from the difficult in clearly distinguishing an actual boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. ... From a purely cladistic outlook, Homo erectus should be sunk, since species originating through anagenesis (ie, without branching) are not recognized as separate species according to the criteria of phylogenetic systematics. (Wolpoff et al. 1984)
In other words, they propose sinking H. erectus into H. sapiens only because there are so many intermediate fossils that it is difficult to define a boundary between them, and because there are theoretical reasons for calling them the same species (no matter how much anatomical difference there is) if, as the multiregionalists believe, H. sapiens did not branch off from a subset of the H. erectus population. Wolpoff and his colleagues are not saying that the two species should be merged because there is insufficient difference between them, and Wolpoff has confirmed to me (in an email) that the amount of difference is not the issue.

Most scientists disagree with the idea of sinking H. erectus into H. sapiens, believing that the differences are clearly enough to merit a species distinction. A growing number would go further, and argue that there is room for another species between them, Homo heidelbergensis, which would contain many of the fossils often called "archaic" Homo sapiens (Tattersall 1995). It is also far from certain that the multiregional theory is correct, in which case even the theoretical reasons for sinking H. erectus would disappear.

Scientists who propose sinking H. erectus therefore provide no comfort for creationists, since their reasons totally contradict creationists who would claim that the H. erectus morphology is caused by diseases of, or racial variation in, H. sapiens.

One occasionally sees creationists claiming that many scientists now believe that H. erectus is no longer a valid species. This was never true. Shipman (2003) discusses a conference in 1991 at which a proposal by Wolpoff, Thorne and their colleagues to abandon H. erectus as a species was a contentious topic. Even then, the proposal did not get far and since then it has faded away. As Shipman says, "The move to eliminate Homo erectus is largely defunct...".

New evidence
Both Lubenow and Mehlert have stated, in support of the claim that erectus fossils should be classified as H. sapiens, that H. erectus brain sizes fall within the modern human range. Although this ignored the huge difference in statistical distribution of brain size between the two species (see my brain sizes page for more details), and the clear anatomical differences (see here), it was, strictly speaking, true, in that an extremely small percentage of living humans did overlap the brain sizes of erectus. Now, however, even that slender rationale has disappeared.
In 2002, Vekua et al. announced the discovery of D2700, a new hominid skull from Georgia (in the ex-USSR), following the discovery of two earlier skulls (Gabunia et al. 2000). These three skulls are most similar to those of early African H. erectus specimens, but are quite primitive and also share a number of characteristics with H. habilis skulls. Their brain sizes range from 780 cc (previously the lower end of the erectus range) down to 600 cc, which is in the middle of the H. habilis range. Taken as a group, these three skulls extend the anatomical range of erectus beyond anything that could conceivably be attributed to Homo sapiens. Both in anatomy and brain size, they bridge the gap between H. erectus and H. habilis.

See the D2700 page for more information about these fossils.

References
Angela P. & P. (1993): The extraordinary story of human origins. Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books.

Bowden M. (1981): Ape-men: fact or fallacy? Ed. 2. Bromley,Kent: Sovereign.

Brown F., Harris J., Leakey R.E., and Walker A.C. (1985): Early Homo erectus skeleton from west lake Turkana, Kenya. Nature, 316:788-92. (announcement of the discovery of the Turkana Boy skeleton)

Gabunia L., Vekua A., Swisher C.C., III, Ferring R., Justus A., Nioradze M. et al. (2000): Earliest Pleistocene hominid cranial remains from Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia: taxonomy, geological setting, and age. Science, 288:1019-25.

Gish D.T. (1985): Evolution: the challenge of the fossil record. El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publishers.

Huse S.M. (1983): The collapse of evolution. Baker Book House Company.

Lubenow M.L. (1992): Bones of contention: a creationist assessment of human fossils. Grand Rapids,MI: Baker Books.

Mehlert A.W. (1994): Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or variability? Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 8(1):105-16.

Menton D.N. (1988): The scientific evidence for the origin of man. (a creationist article)

Morris H.M. (1974): Scientific creationism. Santee,California: Master Books.

Morris H.M. and Parker G.E. (1982): What is creation science? San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.

Shipman P. (2000): Doubting Dmanisi. American Scientist, Nov-Dec 2000

Taylor P.S. (1992): The illustrated origins answer book. Ed. 4. Mesa,Arizona: Eden Productions.

Vekua A., Lordkipanidze D., Rightmire G.P., Agusti J., Ferring R., Maisuradze G. et al. (2002): A new skull of early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Science, 297:85-9. (D2700)

Walker A.C. and Shipman P. (1996): The wisdom of the bones. New York: Alfred E. Knopf. (a popular history of Homo erectus and the discovery and analysis of the Turkana Boy skeleton)

Wolpoff M.H., Wu X.Z., and Thorne A.G. (1984): Modern Homo sapiens origins: a general theory of hominid evolution involving the fossil evidence from east Asia. In F.H. Smith & F. Spencer (Eds.), The origins of modern humans. (pp. 465-7). New York: Alan R. Liss.

2006-06-23 13:57:38 · 6 answers · asked by pope 2

We are a christian family with a Small Business trying to make a honest living unfortunatly the government takes it"s fair share and has took till the business cant give any more. Many things Have hurt us finacialy also,we are praying God will continue to guide us through our hard times and continue to Bless us. I know with Prayer all things are Possible. Thank you for your Prayers. in advance.

2006-06-23 13:57:29 · 14 answers · asked by sugerglaze28 3

2006-06-23 13:54:17 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-06-23 13:52:04 · 4 answers · asked by Gyspy 4

Science and History in the Bible
All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.--Lev.11:20

Arguments cannot be answered by personal abuse.... Should it turn out that I am the worst man in the whole world, the story of the flood will remain just as improbable as before, and the contradictions of the Pentateuch will still demand an explanation. -- Robert Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses

Genesis

The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite. 1:1-2:3

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. 1:11

In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14

God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? 1:16

"He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars. 1:16

"And God set them [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." 1:17

In verse 11, God "let the earth bring forth" the plants. Now he has the earth "bring forth" the animals as well. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe God created livings things through the process of evolution. 1:24

God gave humans dominion over every other living thing on earth. 1:26

God commands us to "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ... every living thing that moveth upon the earth." 1:28

"I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat." 1:29

All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas -- all were strict vegetarians, as they were created by God. 1:30

"God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." He purposefully designed a system that ensures the suffering and death of all his creatures, parasite and host, predator and prey. 1:31

In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed. 1:31

Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. 2:7

After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. 2:18-22

God fashions a woman out of one of Adam's ribs.
Because of this story, it was commonly believed (and sometimes it is still said today) that males have one less rib than females. When Vesalius showed in 1543 that the number of ribs was the same in males and females, it created a storm of controversy. 2:19

God curses the serpent. From now on the serpent will crawl on his belly and eat dust. One wonders how he got around before -- by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don't eat dust, do they? 3:14

Because Adam listened to Eve, God cursed the ground and causes thorns and thistles to grow. Before this, according to the (false) Genesis story, plants had no natural defenses. The rose had no thorn, cacti were spineless, holly leaves were smooth, and the nettle had no sting. Foxgloves, oleander, and milkweeds were all perfectly safe to eat. 3:17-18

"There were giants in the earth in those days." Well, I suppose it's good to know that. But why is there no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants? 6:4

Noah is told to make an ark that is 450 feet long. 6:14-15

Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female representatives from each species of "every thing that creepeth upon the earth." 7:8

God opens the "windows of heaven." He does this every time it rains. 7:11

All of the animals boarded the ark "in the selfsame day." 7:13-14

The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare. 7:20

"The windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained." This happens whenever it stops raining. 8:2

Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry land. But the dove returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later, the dove goes out again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an olive tree survive the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn't germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period. 8:8-11

When the animals left the ark, what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find their way back after the flood subsided? 8:19

Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. 8:20-21

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Although this would have been good advice for the mythical Noah, it is deadly advice for humankind as a whole. Overpopulation is one of our greatest problems, yet there is nothing in the bible to address it. 9:1

According to this verse, all animals fear humans. Although it is true that many do, it is also true that some do not. Sharks and grizzly bears, for example, are generally much less afraid of us than we are of them. 9:2

"Into your hand are they (the animals) delivered." God gave the animals to humans, and they can do whatever they please with them. This verse has been used by bible believers to justify all kinds of cruelty to animals and environmental destruction. 9:2

God is rightly filled with remorse for having killed his creatures. He even puts the rainbow in the sky to remind himself of his promise to the animals not to do it again. But rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops. There were rainbows billions of years before humans existed. 9:13

Some creationists believe that this verse refers to continental drift, which, they say, began to occur during the days of Pelag (which means "division"), about 100 or so years after the flood. But many other creationists disagree. 10:25

"The whole earth was of one language." But this could not be true, since by this time (around 2400 BCE) there were already many languages, each unintelligible to the others. 11:1, 6

God worries that people could build a tower high enough to reach him (them?) in heaven, and that by so doing they will become omnipotent. 11:4-6

According to the Tower of Babel story, the many human languages were created instantaneously by God. But actually the various languages evolved gradually over long periods of time. 11:9

The ridiculously long lives of the patriarchs. 11:10-32

"And they returned to the land of the Philistines." But the Philistines didn't arrive in the region of Canaan until around 1200 BCE -- 800 years after Abraham's supposed migration from Ur. 21:32, 26:1, 8, 15, 18

Laban learns "by experience" that God has blessed him for Jacob's sake. "By experience" means "by divination", at least that is how most other versions translate this verse. 30:27

Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats. 30:37-39

God (or an angel) praises Jacob for his fancy genetic work in Gen.30:37-39. 31:11-12

Joseph and his magic divining cup. 44:5, 44:15
Exodus

It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than ten days. 16:35

The Israelite population went from 70 (or 75) to several million in a few hundred years. 1:5,7, 12:37, 38:26

Why are some people born with disabilities? Because God deliberately makes them that way. 4:11

God led the Israelites through the land of the Philistines, hundreds of years before the Philistines were established in Canaan. 13:17

"The manna referred to in the Bible, in Exodus 16:14, seems to have been the dried excrement of Trabutina mannipara, a scale insect that feeds on tamarisk trees." Benjamin B. Normark, The Sex Lives of Scales, Natural History, Sept. 2004. 16:14-15

"In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them."
Believers often say that the "days" of creation should be taken allegorically, but this verse is quite clear. God created the universe in six 24 hour days. 20:11
Leviticus

The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof. But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud." 11:5-6

Bats are birds to the biblical God. 11:13, 19

Be sure to watch out for those "other flying creeping things which have four feet." (I wish God wouldn't get so technical!) I guess he must mean four-legged insects. You'd think that since God made the insects, and so many of them (at least several million species), that he would know how many legs they have! 11:23

God's law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. 14:2-52
Numbers

The Israelite population went from seventy (Ex.1:5) to several million (over 600,000 adult males) in just a few generations! 1:45-46

God sends quails to feed his people until they were "two cubits [about a meter] high upon the face of the earth." Taking the "face of the earth" to be a circle with a radius of say 30 kilometers (an approximate day's journey), this would amount to 3 trillion (3x1012) liters of quails. At 2 quails per liter, this would provide a couple million quails for each of several million people. 11:31

God strikes Miriam with leprosy. (In the Bible, leprosy is caused by the wrath of God or the malice of Satan.) 12:10

"And there we saw the giants ... And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." This statement may have been figurative, hyperbole, typical biblical exaggeration, or an actual description of the sons of Anak, in which case they must have been about 100 meters tall. These are the same giants (the Nephilium) that resulted when the "sons of God" mated with "the daughters of men in Gen.6:4. Of course these superhuman god-men should have been destroyed in the flood. So what are they doing still alive? 13:33

It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than ten days. 14:33, 32:13

God's cure for snakebite: a brass serpent on a pole. 21:8

God has "the strength of a unicorn." Oh heck, I bet he's even stronger than a unicorn. 23:22, 24:8
Deuteronomy

It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than ten days. 2:7, 8:2, 29:5

"A land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time." (They must have been much more common back then.) 2:10-11, 20-21

Og, the king of the giants, was a tall man, even by NBA standards. His bed measured 9 by 4 cubits (13.5 feet long and 6 feet wide). 3:11

God promises to cast out seven nations including the Amorites, Canaanites, and the Jebusites. But he was unable to fulfill his promise. These nations were "greater and mightier" than the Israelites, who according to Ex.12:37 and Num.1:45-46 already had numbered several million. So the region, according to the bible, must have had a population of more than twenty million! 7:1

This verse mistakenly says that the hare chews its cud. 14:7-8

To the biblical God, a bat is just an another unclean bird. 14:11, 18

"Their wine is the poison of dragons." I wonder what genus and species the bible is referring to when it mentions dragons. 32:33

Joseph's "horns are like the horns of a unicorn." 33:17
Joshua

It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than ten days. 5:6

In Joshua 8 the Israelites destroy Ai and make it a desolate heap. But Ai was an abandoned city by the time of the Israelites and this story is a myth invented to explain the ruins of an ancient city that the Israelites encountered. See Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy by Farrell Till. 8:1-29

This verse says that Ai was never again occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah (7:32) lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity. 8:28

In a divine type of daylight savings time, God makes the sun stand still so that Joshua can get all his killing done before dark. 10:12-13

"And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which as of the remnant of the giants...." 12:4, 18:6
Judges

"The stars in their courses fought against Sisera." Unless astrology is true, how can the stars affect the outcome of a battle? 5:20

"As the sun ... goeth forth in his might." The sun, according to the bible, goes around the earth. 5:31
1 Samuel

"The pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them. 2:8

Goliath was ten feet tall ("six cubits and a span"). 17:4
2 Samuel

In what is surely a biblical exaggeration, we are told that "the servants of David" killed 20,000 soldiers in one day. And that "the wood [forest] devoured more people that day than the sword devoured." It must have been spooky forest to have devoured more than 20,000 soldiers. There were probably lots of lions and tigers and bears. (Oh my!)18:7-8

The earth shakes, the foundations of heaven move, smoke comes out of God's nostrils, and fire out of his mouth. 22:8-16

How many soldiers did Israel have? This verse says that Judah and Israel had a total of 1,300,000 fighting men (1 Chr.21:5 says 1,570,000) in this battle. Of course, this is a ridiculously high number for a battle between two tribal armies in 1000 BCE. (The United States had about 1.37 million active duty soldiers in 2001.) 24:9
1 Kings

This verse implies that the value of p is 3. (The actual value is approximately 3.14159.) 7:23

God creates droughts by causing "heaven to shut up" as a punishment for sin. 8:35

Ever the playful spirit, God withers, and then restores, the hand of king Jeroboam. 13:4
2 Kings

Elisha cures a leper, but only after the leper dips himself seven times in the Jordan. 5:14

Elisha not only can cure leprosy, he can also dish it out. Here he makes his servant (Gehazi) and all his descendants lepers forever. 5:27

A dead body is brought to life when it accidentally touches the bones of Elisha. 13:21

Isaiah, with a little help from God, makes the sun move backwards ten degrees. Now that's quite a trick. All at once, the earth stopped spinning and then reversed its direction of rotation. Or maybe the sun traveled around the earth in those days! 20:11
1 Chronicles

Some creationists believe that this verse (and Gen.10:25) refers to continental drift, which, they say, began to occur during the days of Pelag (which means "division"), about 100 or so years after the flood. 1:19

"The earth ... shall be stable, that it be not moved." It doesn't spin on its axis or travel about the sun. 16:30

According to this verse David's army had 1,100,000 men from Israel and 470,000 men from Judah, Of course, this numbers is ridiculously high for a battle between two tribal armies in 1000 BCE. (The United States had about 1.37 million active duty soldiers in 2001.) 21:5 David provides Solomon with a fantastically large amount of gold and silver with which to build the temple: 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver. Since a talent was about 60 pounds, this would be about 3,000 tons of gold and 30,000 tons of silver. 22:14

King David collects ten thousand drams (or darics) for the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. This is especially interesting since darics were coins named after King Darius I who lived some five hundred years after David. 29:7

As usual, the reported amounts of gold, silver, and iron are grossly exaggerated. (100,000 talents of iron, for example, would be about 34 million kilograms.) 29:7
2 Chronicles

Since the molten sea was round with a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of thirty cubits, we know that the biblical value of p is 3. (The actual value is approximately 3.14159.) 4:2

Abijah spoke to 1,200,000 soldiers at one time. (He had a really loud voice.) 13:3-4

500,000 soldiers die in a single God-assisted slaughter. 13:16-17

In the largest single God-assisted massacre in the bible, Asa, with God's help, kills one million Ethiopians. 14:8-14

Asa, when he had a foot disease, went to physicians instead of seeking the Lord. (God disapproves of those who seek medical help rather than "seeking the Lord.") 16:12

God makes Uzziah a leper for burning incense without a license. 26:19-21
Esther

"Haman thought in his heart." Most people think with their heads, but biblical folks think with their hearts. 6:6
Job

The earth rests upon pillars and doesn't move (unless God gets angry or something). 9:6

"Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not."
The earth is fixed and the sun travels about it. 9:7

Heaven is set upon pillars that tremble when God gets mad. 26:11

The earth is set on foundations and it does not move. 38:4-6

God has snow and hail all stored up to use later "in time of trouble." 38:22

God spread out the sky, which is a solid structure, hard and strong like a mirror. 37:18

Ostriches are not cruel and stupid birds who abandon their eggs to die after laying them, as these verses imply. They are, in fact, careful and attentive parents. The male scoops out a hollow for the eggs, which are incubated by the female during the day and the male at night. After the eggs are hatched, they are cared for by the mother for over a month, at which time the chicks can keep up with running adults. 39:13-16

The bible is wrong about ostriches being cruel and inattentive parents (39:13-16). But if they were, whose fault would it be? Why would God deprive them of the tools that are needed to do the job right? 39:17

Bible believers have identified the behemoth as a hippopotamus, dinosaur, wildebeest, or crocodile. But my favorite is the way these verses are translated by Stephen Mitchell: "Look now: the Beast that I made: he eats grass like a bull. Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly. His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor." 40:15-16

"Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord?" 41:1-34
Psalms

The earth shakes whenever God really gets mad. 18:7

"The foundations of the world were discovered ... at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils." (The earth is set on firm foundations and does not move -- unless God blows his nose.) 18:15

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." 19:1

The sun moves around the earth. 19:4-6

From his seat in heaven, God can see the whole earth and all its inhabitants.
(He sits directly above the earth, which is a flat disc below him.) 33:14-15

Diseases are sent by God to punish sin. 38:3

According to the psalmist, snails melt. But they don't, of course, they simply leave a slimy trail as they move along. 58:8

God is so strong that he can break the head of dragons and of leviathan. 74:13-14

God holds the earth up with pillars. 75:3

Another reference to "the foundations of the earth", implying that the earth is fixed and does not move. 82:5

"Thou hast broken Rahab [the sea monster] in pieces." 89:10

"The world also is established, that it cannot be moved." 93:1

"The world also shall be established that it shall not be moved." 96:10

"The Lord ... who healeth all thy diseases." God heals all diseases. Medical science is unnecessary. 103:2-3

"God ... who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain" (The earth is stationary and does not orbit the sun.) 104:5

"In wisdom hast thou made them all." 104:24

God is offended by those who make things with their hands or invent things with their minds. 106:39

"The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works." Then why do nearly all animals die painful deaths from starvation, predation, or disease long before they reach adulthood? 145:9

God "satisfiest the desire of every living thing." But in nature few needs are met and few desires are satisfied. Life is short, hard, cruel, and painful for nearly every living thing. 145:17

"He calleth them all by their names."
God knows how many stars there are and knows them all by name. That's pretty impressive since there are 100 billion or so gallaxies, each containing about 100 billion stars. 147:7

"Praise him in the firmament of his power." 150:1
Ecclesiastes

"The sun also ariseth"
Although this verse is interpreted figuratively today, it was taken literally by virtually all Christians until the Copernican revolution, and was used by the Church to condemn Galileo for teaching the heliocentric heresy. 1:5

"He hath made every thing beautiful."
Everything is beautiful in its own way. Parasitic worms, cancer cells, bubonic plague. You just have to look at it from God's eyes. 3:11

"No man can find out the work that God maketh."
Science is impossible. We can learn nothing at all about the natural world. 3:11
Isaiah

"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb...." I wonder what will become of the spiders. Will they be more friendly toward flies? And will the parasitic wasps find another way to feed their larvae? Or will they continue to feed off the living bodies of caterpillars? 11:6, 65:25

"And the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den." A cockatrice is a serpent, hatched from a cock's egg, that can kill with a glance. They are rare nowadays. 11:8

God will gather up the people of Judea "from the four corners of the earth." In the Bible's view, the earth is flat with four corners. 11:12

According to the Bible, the moon produces its own light and the earth does not move. 13:10

When God gets really angry, he causes earthquakes. 13:13

Dragons will live in Babylonian palaces and satyrs will dance there. 13:21-22

Out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent." What ever happened to these fascinating biblical creatures? 14:29

God will turn the earth upside down, knock it off of its foundations, and then shake and bake it until it "reels to and fro like a drunkard." 24:1, 18-20

God will punish the leviathan ("that crooked serpent") with his own sword and will kill the sea dragon. 27:1

Natural disasters (earthquakes, storms, fires, tsunamis) are caused by, and are a sign of, God's wrath. 29:7

Among the many strange creatures mentioned in the Bible that no longer seem to exist is the "fiery flying serpent." 30:6

"The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold." Well, this is one prophecy that will never come true. Since the moon has no light of its own, but only reflects that of the sun, it could never shine like the sun. And the sun will not, at least not while there are humans to see it, shine 7 times as bright as it does now. 30:26

"And the unicorns shall come down with them." 34:7

Dragons and satyrs may not seem real to you, but they did to the author of these verses. 34:13-14

God makes the sun move backwards 10 degrees. Now that's a neat trick! 38:8

The earth is a flat disc that God looks down upon from his throne in heaven. 40:22

Even the dragons honor God. 43:20

God cut Rahab (the sea monster) to pieces, wounded the dragon, and dried up the sea. 51:9-10

Bad people hatch poisonous cockatrice eggs. Whoever eats the eggs will die, and when the eggs are crushed a viper hatches out of them. 59:5

"Neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee." Of course the moon doesn't give off light, but only reflects the light from the sun. 60:19
Jeremiah

Droughts are punishments from God. 3:3

"I will send serpents, cockatrices among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you." A cockatrice is a serpent, hatched from a cock's egg, that can kill with a glance. They are rare nowadays. 8:17

When God gets angry, the earth trembles. (That's what causes earthquakes.) 10:10

The wild asses "snuffed up the wind like dragons." 14:6

The earth is set on foundations and does not move. 31:37
Lamentations

Ostriches are not cruel and inattentive parents, as this verse implies. They are, in fact, careful and attentive parents. The male scoops out a hollow for the eggs, which are incubated by the female during the day and the male at night. After the eggs are hatched, they are cared for by the mother for over a month, at which time the chicks can keep up with running adults. 4:3
Ezekiel

"The firmament ... the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above." 1:22

The world is flat and has four corners. 7:2

The firmament is over the heads of the cherubim. 10:1

God "will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light." To Ezekiel, the sun is just a little light that can be covered with a cloud, and the moon produces its own light. 32:7
Daniel

The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be 606 BCE, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was 597 BCE that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem for the first time (without actually destroying it). By that time Jehohiakim was dead and his son, Jehoiachin, was ruling. 1:1

The stone became "a great mountain" that "filled the whole earth." This could only be possible on a flat, disc-shaped earth. 2:35

Daniel's tree is tall enough to be seen from "the end of all the earth." Only on a flat earth would this be possible. 4:10-11, 20

Apparently, the author of Daniel knew of only two Babylonian kings during the period of the exile: Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, who he wrongly thought was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son, Awil-Marduk (referred to in the bible as "Evilmerodach" [see 2 Kg.25:27 and Jer.52:31]). In 560 BCE, Amel-Marduk was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur. The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. It was Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar, who was the last of the Babylonian kings. Belshazzar was a the son and viceroy of Nabonidus. But he was not a king, and was not the son (or any other relation) of Nebuchadnezzar. 5:2,11,18,22

Darius the Median is a fictitious character whom the author perhaps confused with Darius I of Persia, who came to the throne in 521 BCE, 17 years after the fall of Babylon. The author of Daniel incorrectly makes him the successor of Belshazzar instead of Cyrus. 5:31

To Daniel, the stars are small objects that can fall from the sky and then be "stamped upon." 8:10

"They ... shall shine as the brightness of the firmament." 12:3
Joel

"The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood." These "signs" were a lot more impressive before the causes of solar and lunar eclipses were understood. 2:31
Amos

God destroyed the Amorites who were a race of giants as tall as cedars and as strong as oaks. 2:9

It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than ten days. 2:10
Jonah

God makes "a great fish" to swallow Jonah. And Jonah stayed in the fish's belly for three days and three nights. 1:17

"Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey." That would make it about 60 miles in diameter -- larger than Los Angeles! 3:3
Micah

The earth is set upon strong foundations and therefore does not move. 6:2
Nahum

Tornadoes, earthquakes, and fires are caused by God and are signs of his anger. 1:5
Habakkuk

"The sun and moon stood still in their habitation." This verse apparently refers to Joshua 10:12-13, where God makes the sun stand still. 3:11
Matthew

When was Jesus born? 2:1

"The star ... went before them."
If the star "went before them," leading them to Bethlehem, then it couldn't have been a star or any other astronomical object or event. But Matthew couldn't have known that. Everyone at the time thought that stars were just little points of light a short distance above the earth. It'd be no problem to have one hover above a particular place for a while. 2:9

Herod kills all boys in and around Bethlehem that are two years old and under. Such a massacre would certainly have been noted by contemporary historians. Yet not even Josephus, who documented Herod's life in detail, mentioned this event. 2:16

The devil kidnaps Jesus and takes him up to the top of the temple, and then to the top of "an exceedingly high mountain," high enough to see "all the kingdoms of the world." I guess the earth was flat in those days. 4:8

"Behold the fowls of the air...." Jesus says that God feeds them. But, if so, he does one hell of a lousy job at it. Most birds die before leaving the nest, and the few who manage to fly soon die painful deaths of starvation, predation, or disease. If God is caring for them, pray that he stays away from you. 6:26

Speaking of the birds, Jesus asks: "Are ye not much better than they?" This is meant as a rhetorical question, but the answer is far from obvious to me. I guess to Jesus, though, birds are not worth much compared to humans. So you can do whatever the hell you want with (and to) them. 6:26

According to Matthew, people who cannot speak are possessed by the devil. 9:32-33

Jesus gives his disciples "power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness." 10:1

Jesus tells his disciples to perform all the usual tricks: "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and cast out devils." 10:8

God is involved in the death of every sparrow. He sees to it that they each die painful deaths of starvation, predation, or disease. But don't worry. God will do the same for you. (He thinks that humans are worth much more than sparrows.) 10:29. 31

Jesus casts out a devil from a man who was blind and dumb. (Thos we are unable to see or hear are possessed by devils.) 12:22

Some Christians believe that the natural evil in the world (predators, parasites, pain, death) is due to Satan, not God. 13:28

Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. And since there are no trees in the mustard family, mustard seeds do not grow into "the greatest of all trees." 13:31-32

Jesus cures an epileptic "lunatic" by "rebuking the devil." (Epilepsy is caused by devils.) 17:15-18

"The moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven." Apparently, Jesus believed that the moon produces its own light, and that the stars are lights held in place by a firmament only a few miles above our heads. 24:29

Jesus believed that Noah's flood actually happened. 24:37

When Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over all the land." And when he died, there was a great earthquake with many corpses walking the streets of Jerusalem. It is strange that there is no record of any of these extraordinary events outside of the gospels. 27:45, 51-53
Mark

Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. (The smallest seeds are found among the tropical, epiphytic orchids.) 4:31

"Thy faith hath made thee whole." If you have enough faith, you will never get sick. (Illness is caused by sin and lack of faith. Medical science is unnecessary.) 5:34

Jesus heals a boy with "a dumb spirit" by saying, "Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him and enter no more into him." (Sounds like a script from Monty Python, doesn't it?) But how could a deaf spirit hear the words spoken to it? And how could a dumb spirit cry out? 9:17, 25-26

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Jesus believed that sex and Adam and Eve were created "from the beginning." But the universe is about 13.6 billion years old, the earth 4.6 billion, sex a billion years or so, and humans (depending on how you define "human") for a couple million years. 10:6

"In those days ... the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of heaven shall fall." Of course this is nonsense. The billions of stars will never fall to earth and the moon does not produce its own light. 13:24-25

When Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over the whole land." It is strange that there is no record of this extraordinary event outside of the gospels. 15:33
Luke

When was Jesus born? 2:1

The devil takes Jesus to the top of a mountain and shows him "all the kingdoms of the world." I guess the world was flat in those days. 4:5

Epilepsy is caused by devils. 9:39

People who cannot speak are possessed with devils. 11:14

Illnesses are caused by Satan. 13:11-16

Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. 17:26-27

Jesus also believes the story about Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history. 17:29-32

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars." 21:25

When Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over all the earth." It is strange that there is no record of this extraordinary event outside of the gospels. 23:44-45
John

"These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing." But no such site is known in history. Some translations (ASV, NAB, NIV, RSV, NRSV) rename Bethabara as Bethany, but Bethany is a suburb of Jerusalem and, therefore, not "beyond the Jordan." 1:28

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
Good question, Jesus! He was wrong about creation in Mk.10:6, wrong about the flood in Lk.17:26-27, and wrong about the smallest seed in Mt.13:31-32. So why would anyone believe him when he talks about heaven in Jn.3:16? 3:12

Whoever enters a pool after it is stirred up by angels will be cured of "whatsoever disease he had." 5:4

Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14

The disciples ask Jesus about the cause of a man's blindness. Was it because he or his parents sinned? Jesus said neither had sinned. The man was born blind so that Jesus could show off his powers by curing him of his blindness. 9:1-3

A blind man's sight is restored by washing in the pool of Siloam. 9:7
Acts

"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?"
This verse was used by a Dominican friar to discourage the use of Galileo's telescope. (Notice the pun on Galileo's name in "men of Galilee".) 1:11

The prophets have spoken "since the world began," which means that humans have been around since the creation of the world. But humans are recent arrivals on an ancient earth. There were no prophets when the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. 3:21

The sick were healed just by touching the shadow of Peter. 5:15-16

It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than ten days. 7:36, 13:18

Sick people are oppressed by the devil. 10:38

Sick people were cured by touching the handkerchief or apron of Paul. And the evil spirits when out of them." 19:12

Paul is bitten by a poisonous snake and yet lives. The "barbarians" who were shipwrecked with him thought he must be a murderer since he was bitten; but then they changed their minds and thought him to be a god since he didn't die. (The snake story is especially interesting since there are no poisonous snakes on Malta, and there is no evidence of their existence in the past.) 28:3-8
Romans

The existence and nature of God are self-evident. 1:20

The Religious Right often uses Romans 1:21-25 to condemn environmentalists. 1:21-25

Paul claims that before Adam sinned death did not exist. But, of course, death didn't enter the world a few thousand years ago because of Adam's sin. Death has been a part of life since life first arose (on this planet, at least) a few billion years ago. 5:12

Paul says that everyone, even in his day, had the gospel preached to them. Even the Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders? 10:18
1 Corinthians

Paul shows his ignorance (and God's) of biology by saying that only dead seeds will germinate. Actually, a seed must be alive to germinate. 15:36

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another of beasts."
This verse is used by Creationists to argue against both evolution and any attempt to create "human-animal hybrids" or "chimeras." 15:39

"The first man Adam"
Young Earth Creationists use this verse to support a literal reading of Genesis. "If we cannot believe in the First Adam, why believe in the Last [Christ]?" 15:45

"And afterward that which is spiritual."
Asa Gray, the foremost American botanist in the 19th century and close friend of Charles Darwin, used this verse to support the idea that the Bible is not inconsistent with human evolution. 15:46
2 Corinthians
"As the serpent beguiled Eve"
Young Earth Creationists use this verse to show that Paul believed the creation story in Gen.3:1-6. 11:3
Ephesians

Satan is the "prince of the power of the air." Until modern times Christians believed that Satan was responsible for storms and droughts. 2:2
Colossians

"For by him were all things created.... All things were created by him, and for him.... And by him all things consist." Including guinea worms? 1:16-17
1 Timothy

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve." Young Earth Creationists use this verse to show that Paul believed the creation story in Gen.2:18-22. 2:13

Avoid science, especially that which disagrees with Paul ("science falsely so called"). Other versions translate this phrase as "false knowledge", which may be more correct. However many fundamentalist Christians still use this verse ("science falsely so called") to justify their rejection of any idea, scientific or otherwise, they believe contradicts the bible. 6:20
Hebrews

God set the earth on a foundation; therefore, it does not move. 1:10
James

James says that, even in his day, all beasts, birds, serpents, and sea creatures had been tamed by humans. 3:7

If you are sick, rely on the power of prayer. It works every time. 5:14-15

By praying, Elias was able to keep it from raining for three and a half years. 5:17
2 Peter

Those who disbelieve in the Bible's creation and flood stories are "willingly ignorant." 3:5

"God ... spared not the old world, but saved Noah."
Young Earth Creationists use this verse to show that the New Testament authors believed in the flood story. (So you should too.) 2:4-5
Revelation

"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him." This could only happen on a flat earth. 1:7

Jesus holds seven stars in his hand. Of course, it is possible that this is metaphorical. Perhaps. But it is clear from other verses (6:13, 8:10, 12:4) that John thought of stars as being small, perhaps even small enough for Jesus to hold in his hand. 1:16

"Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." God created predators, pathogens, and predators for his very own pleasure. One of his favorite species is guinea worms. 4:11

The sixth seal is opened and there is a great earthquake, the sun becomes black, and the moon red, the stars fall from heaven, and mountains and islands move around. 6:12-14

"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth...." To John, the stars are just little lights a few miles away that can easily fall to the earth. 6:13

John "saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth." Well, I guess that settles it: the earth is flat and square-shaped, or at least quadrilateral in shape. 7:1

An angel threw the censer down to earth, causing thunder, lightning, and earthquakes. 8:5

"And there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters." In the bible, stars are just little lights that can fall to the ground from the sky. 8:10

The fourth trumpet smites one third of the sun, moon, and stars. 8:12

"I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth." 9:1

God's witnesses have special powers. They can shut up heaven so that it cannot rain, turn rivers into blood, and smite the earth with plagues "as often as they will." 11:6

The dragon's tail smacks down to earth one third of the stars. To the author of Revelation, the stars are just little lights that can fall to the ground from the sky. 12:4

2006-06-23 13:50:07 · 18 answers · asked by pope 2

2006-06-23 13:42:09 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

As most of you know Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and in my opinion both religions are obviously very flawed in their scriptures, but Christianity much more so. Not only are there so many contradictions in the Bible the fondation the religion itself is built upon is shaky.

Why is it that Jesus is nonexistant in literature from the time in which he lived. He was supposedly well known for performing these glorious miracles but any evidence that is left of him comes from those after his time. There is absolutely no evidence that the central figure of Christianity even lived. With this in mind I find it hilarious that Christians think that non-Christians will go to hell(If there is such a thing). That would be a genocide worse than the halocaust...

While Islam has its blatent flaws itself its holy book has remained intact over the years and proof of its main figure can be had.

So how long until Islam overtakes Christianity?

2006-06-23 13:41:40 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-06-23 13:41:29 · 5 answers · asked by ? 4

Ive read on some websites that Catholics can be excommunicated for being masons because of the conflict of beliefs.

2006-06-23 13:40:17 · 11 answers · asked by Tony V 2

If you are a Christian who believes Jesus is God, do you worship Jesus' mother as well? since she is god's mommy, according to your beliefs?

Thanks!

2006-06-23 13:38:42 · 21 answers · asked by happy wahhaby 2

I tried this thing called pedia/ort/oligiest it's a thing when you get checked from the doctors, like a shot for nezzel's or w/e it's called and for the past few days, I've seen ghosts, not close, but yeah, from darkness, t.v.s, when the t.v. is turned off, unusual pics... before this never happens.HELP?

2006-06-23 13:37:11 · 5 answers · asked by imreallymean 3

Furthermore he must have know that the Jewish people were going to disobey Him over and over and over again. Each time they disobeyed they were punished. Till this day most of them have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Why?

2006-06-23 13:34:18 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Who thinks Jezus was just an apparition?

2006-06-23 13:33:08 · 10 answers · asked by snowy dragon 1

If not then describe what all the fossils are about, and if you do believe why is there no mention of them in the Bible?

2006-06-23 13:30:28 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-06-23 13:29:25 · 14 answers · asked by Robert M 2

It seems that a lot of people don't believe in God in here, and they also don't want anyone ealse to believe either. It is not nessacery to say some of the vulgar and nasty things that have been said. Have some manners and respect for others. Some of the things said weren't even questions, just vulgar talk.

2006-06-23 13:27:34 · 17 answers · asked by laurelbush28762 4

For all the while, elephants of stone stomp on these celestial shores, and you in your blindness, take no note.

2006-06-23 13:27:11 · 4 answers · asked by Frompers 2

2006-06-23 13:26:11 · 13 answers · asked by Jesse S 2

2006-06-23 13:26:07 · 10 answers · asked by tj 1

you say i'm bound for hell.so once your judgment condems you i shall see you there!!!!!

2006-06-23 13:25:20 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

.

2006-06-23 13:20:15 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Him and I have been together for 4 1/2 months. I believe Jesus, the son of man was sent to this earth to die for our sins.....him, as a deist, does NOT believe he was crucified for our sins. And he does not believe that Jesus is the son of God. We love eachother, and this is the ONLY THING that is getting in the way. We have had pretty interesting discussions, (we were both very respectful and understanding) just dont agree with eachother. I would like to hear everyones opinion, ESPECIALLY a deist and Christian couple. How do you not let this get in the way? Is differences in believes be a good enough reason to not be together? Im seriously having 2nd thoughts about this relationship. Thank you.

2006-06-23 13:18:26 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

2+2=4
2+2=5
therefore
Hitler is the Pope?

2006-06-23 13:15:49 · 13 answers · asked by Frompers 2

was it answered?

2006-06-23 13:05:58 · 35 answers · asked by mtoi 2

What do the Amish think of black people? I ask because I thought about Mormans and how they don't think highly of black people and I just started to wonder about the Amish.

2006-06-23 13:02:25 · 11 answers · asked by cricket 2

So, we have God the father, God the son and God the holy ghost. All the 1 person right? Now mary was made pregnant by the holy ghost ( the father and the son) and she gave birth to the son ( the father and the ghost). So, Jesus was his own father and Mary was knocked up by her unborn son? Have I got that right? Must be fun at Xmas dinner at their house.

2006-06-23 13:01:14 · 19 answers · asked by Mallo 2