Tommy Guyer... as always giving us amusing thoughts. He has the nerve to say "Everywhere the Bible speaks scientifically, it is in harmony with today's science." Let's have a look at a couple of "scientific statements" in the Bible:

Lev 11:5,6 - The rock badger, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you.

Lev 11:13,19 - These you shall regard as detestable among the birds. They shall not be eaten; they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey,...the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe and the bat.

Sounds like the Bible has a few odd things to say regarding elementary biology, eh?

Tommy boy also says this: "The Bible teaches the earth is round, hangs in empty space, and rotates on its axis."

Where are his quotes supporting this? And I wonder why it took the Christiam church 400 hears to figure this out? I'll tell you why. Because the Bible is full of verses that say "the earth cannot move," "the rain comes from windows in the sky" and "the sky will burn away."

Perhaps it would be best to stop looking into a book written by bronze-age philosophers for scientific information, and start studying the actual world. You never know. It might just work!

When someone like Tommy Guyer makes so many obviously uninformed statements, it seems like wishful thinking to believe I could say something that would actually make him think -- but as hope springs eternal, here I go. Tommy starts by saying that Galileo's church-dominated society as well as today's teaches contrary to the Bible. That is how he explains the church taking 400 years to acknowledge the earth is not the center of the universe and actually revolves around the sun. Well if the church can't get something as basic as this right (which I can accept), then why does he rely on church doctrine in the other points in his letter? To begin with: Yes, Tommy, building immunity is a way of evolving. You seem to not understand that evolution is an explanation of the way life adapts to changing conditions in order to improve its' chances of survival. Delevoping immunity is a big adaptive benefit and those organisms that can't do so will soon be gone. As to stem call research: this work is still in it's infancy. If there is any more benefit from adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells, it is only because the progress of science has been hampered by time, money and it's political and religious foes. Your argument is like saying the space program has not shown any benefits from exploring Mars when we only just got there! Give it a little time Tommy and see what we can do. Next you state that the pursuit of happiness guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence does not apply to gays because their relationship is a crime. This strikes me as nothing but racist. Yes, Tommy -- racist. Is this any different than 100 years ago when good church-going people condemned black and white relationships? Why it was against nature!! Well, I guess I haven't considered that you might actually still think that so why should I be surprised with this? I don't know Tommy. It's so depressing to realize that so many people close their minds to the world around them and feel their lives so threatened by the scientific evaluation and changes that leads to. But that has been the legacy of the religious for the past 2000 years, so I do not expect it to end soon. I am only encouraged when I realize that everyday a few more people open their minds and realize they can leave the polarizing influence of the church behind.

How about a little respect, gentlemen. Referring to Mr. Guyer as "Tommy boy" and treating him as an imbecile is not appropriate. We can have a discussion without being irreverent to the people with whom we disagree.

The Bible as a Science Book?
Mr. Guyer's exact quotation was, "Everywhere the Bible speaks scientifically, it is in harmony with today's science. Science cannot dispute nor discredit one Bible verse." Here, Mr. Guyer is not advocating the use of the Bible as a reliable science book. He is simply saying that in those passages where the Bible does discuss something relating to biology, the solar system, etc., it cannot be contradicted by the modern scientific method. To take Eric's example of Leviticus 11:5-6, the Bible is absolutely correct in saying that the hare chews the cud and has no divided hooves. Here the Bible makes a statement that can indeed be supported by modern science.

Eric proceeded to write, "Tommy boy also says this: 'The Bible teaches the earth is round, hangs in empty space, and rotates on its axis.' Where are his quotes supporting this?" (I noted that Eric provided no support for the quotes he claims are in the Bible.) I don't have all the information regarding that question, Eric, but I do know that Isaiah 40:22 says, "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth..." See, that's the kind of stuff Mr. Guyer is talking about. Wherever the Bible happens to make reference to science, we find that it is indeed on target.

Developing Immunity is Evolution?
Scott wrote, "Yes, Tommy, building immunity is a way of evolving. You seem to not understand that evolution is an explanation of the way life adapts to changing conditions in order to improve its' chances of survival. Developing immunity is a big adaptive benefit and those organisms that can't do so will soon be gone." The development of immunity is an example of microevolution, as was the variance in beak size among Darwin's finches. Microevolution refers to slight adaptive modifications within a species. But it is a far cry from macroevolution, which means changing to a whole new species. While it is apparent that microevolution occurs all the time, there is absolutely no evidence that living organisms have ever engaged in macroevolution.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Life begins at conception. Every intellectually honest scientist should know that. Removing embryonic stem cells kills the developing human. Whether or not embryonic research is useful, it is morally reprehensible and cannot be tolerated. Life takes precedence over scientific inquiry.

Homosexuality
Scott made the following statement in reference to Mr. Guyer's argument: "Next you state that the pursuit of happiness guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence does not apply to gays because their relationship is a crime. This strikes me as nothing but racist. Yes, Tommy -- racist." That is odd. Racism applies to bigotry based on race. To call homosexuality a "race" is absolutely incorrect. People choose their sexual orientation, but they cannot choose their race.

Scott also said, "Is this any different than 100 years ago when good church-going people condemned black and white relationships? Why it was against nature!!" To compare in any fashion the militant fight for the recognition of perversion to the struggle of blacks as equals is repulsive. Blacks and whites do not choose their race. They are a demonstration of God's love for diversity and uniqueness. Homosexuals do choose to be gay, and they do so in spite of the traditional moral options: singleness or monogamous heterosexuality.

I Cannot Open My Mind So Much That My Brain Falls Out
While Scott tells Christians like me to open our minds and embrace alternative worldviews, he and Eric remain totally close-minded to the Bible and to the Christian life system. Their intolerance for our beliefs penetrates their thinking, and they have no problem closing their ears and mind to our convictions. Yet, it is our convictions that made this country great, and it is our convictions that continue to make the most sense.

"the Bible is absolutely correct in saying that the hare chews the cud and has no divided hooves. Here the Bible makes a statement that can indeed be supported by modern science"

Really? Last I checked, the hare does NOT chew cud. This statement, like many more in the Wholly Buy-Bull is FALSE. Sorry, you lose this argument.

Justin, I show respect to strangers, and those who act in a manner that respects others. I've corresponded with Guyer in the past, and I see no reason why I should treat his ravings with respect. He obviously believes the Bible IS a book filled with scientific information, and that modern science has for some reason gotten it wrong.

But I also see no reason why I should respect beliefs without question. If someone believes that the moon is made of moldy pumpernickle, I will not respect that belief. I will say it's nonsense and I'll support my contention.

I suggest you take a little time to study biology... hares are NOT ruminants, and have only 1 stomach, like all other rodents. Last time I checked, a circle was not a sphere and bats haven't ever been listed with birds. At least not since people stopped taking Leviticus seriously.

As for my proof quotes:
1: The Earth can't move -
1 Chr 16:29,30 - Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name; bring an offering, and come before him. Worship the Lord in holy splendor; tremble before him, all the earth. The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.

2: Rain comes from windows in the sky -

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Is 24:18,19 - Whoever flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit; and whoever climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble. The earth is utterly broken, the earth is torn asunder, the earth is violently shaken.

3: The sky will burn away -
2 Pet 3:11,12 - Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire?

Rev 6:12-14 - When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and there came a great earthquake; the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree drops its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.

Bonus material: The Earth is set on pillars -
1 Sam 2:8 - He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and on them he has set the world.

Ps 75:3 - When the earth totters, with all its inhabitants, it is I who keep its pillars steady.

In the end, my statement stands... you can't support the idea that the Bible has accurate scientific statements showing advanced knowledge of the universe. It's religious poetry, for crying out loud. That doesn't mean it's worthless. Lots of people find it useful in their lives. But SCIENTISTS have no use for it when they are searching for scientific facts.

Eric, nearly all of your Scriptural examples are metaphorical (perhaps with the exception of the prophesy of the sky burning). They are not meant to be taken 100% literally. In other words, we are not meant to believe that there are actual Pella windows in the sky or that the earth rests on literal Gothic columns.

I must stress what I said previously: the Bible is not a science book and scientists will not find it very useful in studying our world. The point I'm making is simply that where the Bible does speak scientifically, and where no metaphor is present, it is accurate.

With respect to the hare "chewing the cud," take a look at what Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati (B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.), Australian physical chemist and spectroscopist has to say in his article entitled Do Rabbits Chew Their Cud?:

In modern English, animals that "chew the cud" are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

However, the Hebrew phrase for "chew the cud" simply means "raising up what has been swallowed". Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed "raise up what has been swallowed". The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

It is not an error of Scripture that "chewing the cud" now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses' day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do "chew the cud" in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.

On a side note, Brian, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain in the future from purposely demeaning the Scripture in such a crude way.

Also, Eric, I owe you an apology for applying my statement in the final paragraph of my last post to you. Those statements should only have been directed at Scott. I did not have enough information about your beliefs to have said those things about you.

Thanks, Justin, for coming to my defense.

For Eric, I suggest you go to http://www.av1611.org/amazing.html for a list of Bible verses showing just how far ahead of science the Bible really is. You will find here the verses about the earth being round, hanging in empty space, and rotating on its axis, plus a lot more scientific info.

For Scott, embryonic stem-cell research has been going on for 30 years without one benefit for a human being. On the other hand, adult stem cells have been used many times to the benefit of humans. May I refer you to a news article in the High Point Enterprise, Thursday, February 10, 2005, page 7A, entitled "Studies: Adult stem cells heal hearts"

As for my feelings about race, well, you really don't know me, do you? If you did, you might really be surprised.

For Eric, Scott, and Brian -- if you spent half as much time reading and studying the Bible, and searching for Truth, as you do posting objections to my beliefs, you might find out that there is a God who not only created the universe, but died for your sins, and was resurrected for your justification.

Of course, if you are right, you will never be able to tell me, "I told you so." Neither will I ever be able to tell you, "I'm sorry; you were right."

BUT

If I am right, and you don't discover this Jesus and His salvation ....

For Scott,

Hey, Tommy.

Thanks for bringing up Pascal's Wager.

Since we're sharing links, try this:

http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/pascal.html

"For Eric, Scott, and Brian -- if you spent half as much time reading and studying the Bible, and searching for Truth, as you do posting objections to my beliefs, you might find out that there is a God who not only created the universe, but died for your sins, and was resurrected for your justification."

I have read most of the Bible over the years and was once a believer. I have definately researched for the truth and I didn't find it in the Bible, although I do believe in a god, it is not the Christian one.
What is really sad is the lack of temperance most Christians have towards non-believers.
If you read the Bible with an open mind, you may find, as I did, that the Bible is laughable at best.

I came across a book called the Evidence Bible, there was a list of "scientific" claims made in the Bible, let's look at some of them:

The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).
Innumerable stars (Jeremiah 33:22).
Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7).
Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3).
Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41).
Light moves (Job 38:19,20).
Air has weight (Job 28:25).
Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11).
Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6).
Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16).
When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13).

1. Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a "circle", not a "sphere".

A circle is a flat, 2-dimensional shape, and is not a sphere. And technically the earth isn't a perfect sphere, either, it's slightly pear-shaped, called an oblique spheroid.

2. Jeremiah 33:22 says "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered".

Wrong, there is not an infinite number of stars, the actual number is something like 200 billion billion billion, not infinity (which would be impossible because the universe has a finite size).

3. Job 26:7 says "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing".

This seems to say that the earth isn't supported by any physical object, so yes this one looks correct. But the earth doesn't "float freely in space", it's held in orbit around the sun by gravity. The verse doesn't say "float freely" either.

4. Hebrews 11:3: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear".

This wording is pretty vague, and the previous verses discuss faith without seeing evidence, so I think that's what this verse is saying, not subatomic particles that are invisible to the naked eye. Also, we can see (sense) atoms with modern physics equipment, so "invisible" doesn?t apply anymore.

5. 1 Corinthians 15:41 "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory."

Um, glory? That is not a physical property that scientists measure, so, no.

6. Job 38:19, 20 "Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?"

Uh?.what does this have to do with light moving? This says nothing about light moving versus being stationary.

7. Job 28:25 "To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure."

Well is does say "weight", but I'm not sure what it really means. I think they are misusing the word "weight".

8. Ecclesiastes 1:6 "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits."

A cyclone is a circular movement of air, and it says "whirl" and "circuits" so I agree with this one.

9. Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

It does say that life is in the blood, but the surrounding verses mention eating animals and draining their blood before eating them, or animal sacrifices, so this one is pretty hazy as far as health. Plus, what about food, water, or air as the source of life and health?

10. 2 Samuel 22:16 "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils."

Jonah 2:6 "I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God."

The Jonah verse says "mountains", but he's inside the giant fish/whale (for 3 days without being digested or dying from lack of oxygen, which is absurd), so how does he know there are mountains on the ocean floor? What is the "earth with her bars"?

As far as 2 Samuel, a channel is a groove or passageway, not a mountain.

11. Job 38:16 "Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? Or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?"

It says "springs of the sea", OK.

12. Leviticus 15:13 "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean."

This is part of an instruction list for men with some sort of oozing STD, and is followed by cleaning instructions for after intercourse. This section mentions washing or bathing half a dozen times, but only this verse says "running water", and it doesn't day "hands" either, it says "flesh", which can be any external body part.

In total, there are 12 references to "science" in the Bible listed here, and being very generous I would say 5 of them are accurate. But even some of the "correct" ones are worded strangely, so they aren't as clear cut as the Evidence Bible people would have me believe. So 42% is the most I would give this list, and that is probably too high considering the vague language.

Brian, let's look at the verses with which you took issue.

Isaiah 40:22
"Isaiah 40:22 refers to 'the circle of the earth', or in the Italian translation globo. The Hebrew is khug, which means sphericity or roundness." ~Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, (B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.), Australian Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist

Jeremiah 33:22
"Let us now try to visualize the above-mentioned number of stars (i.e. 10000000000000000000000000). No human being lives long enough to count such a large number, so we will use a computer, one of the fastest ones available. It can do 10,000 million calculations in one second, which is extremely fast! Even at this great speed it would require 30 million years of non-stop counting to count the stars, but no computer could last as long as that. God has foretold the result of such an endeavour through His prophet Jeremiah; the stars are, to all intents and purposes, countless, says the Bible, just like the sand grains on the seashore." ~Dr. Werner Gitt, German Information Scientist

Hebrews 11:3
This verse simply says that God created the world ex nihilo, or "out of nothing".

Job 38:19-20
I'm a little unsure as to what your point is here, Brian.

Job 28:25
Remember, the Hebrew word that was translated to "weight" may mean something more precise. That was the case with the Hebrew word for "circle" in the first verse in question.

Leviticus 17:11
How does this verse contradict science, Brian? Blood must be drained from meat before that meat may be consumed. And it is absolutely true that life is contained in the blood, for without blood we die.

Jonah 2:6
It seems that Jonah is using poetic license to basically say, "I went really low." He's not trying to make literal statements about the earth's geography. As to "the earth with her bars," the NIV says, "the earth beneath barred me in forever." Again, Jonah is using a metaphor to explain that he was trapped in the deep.

With regard to how Jonah survived the whale experience, keep in mind that he was divinely sustained.

II Samuel 22:16
This verse makes no mention of mountains. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Job 38:16
"Springs of the sea" could mean something as simple as "the bottom of the ocean." Again, be careful taking every word literally. If I walked up to you and said, "The sky is falling on my day," would you assume I meant that comets were plummeting all around me? No, you would see that I was using a term to mean something else.

Leviticus 15:13
I see nothing scientifically unsafe or unqualified in this verse. Actually, I'd like to drop this verse from the discussion. The subject matter is inappropriate.

I want to add one point to the discussions above. The Bible, like other forms of literature, uses different figures of speech to convey a message to the reader. Also, frequently the writers used anthropromorphisms. That is, they wrote to convey a message that humans would understand from a human point of view. Today, when the weatherman (woman), refers to a sunrise or sunset, we know that the sun is not rising or setting, but the earth has rotated. The sun appears to rise and set from the prospective of someone on earth. The discussion about whether the rabbit chews cud, should take into account that the rabbit appears to chew cud in it's chewing motion and chewing activity similar to that of animals that do chew cud. Sorry, I must hurry to my car to go to lunch, "it's raining cats and dogs outside"!

Here’s a response to the response…..

Isaiah 40:22

First, a chemist is not an expert on the Hebrew language, and from what I have read, Safarti is a creationist who knows very little about actual science. And also, the Bible I read says “circle”, so you are saying that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it says?

Jeremiah 33:22

Yes the estimated number of stars in the universe is a HUGE number, so what? Just because I can’t count to 200 billion billion billion (one by one) doesn’t mean that number doesn’t exist. There’s a useful number in Chemistry called Avogadro’s number, it’s huge but is used every day in chemistry, and we know it represents a real physical property
Also, quoting “experts” doesn’t make your argument correct, that’s a logical error called “appeal to authority”. I can find an “expert” to back up any wild claim I can think of.

Hebrews 11:3

That’s not what it says, read it again. And that is also false, the matter that makes up the earth has always existed in some form.

Job 38:19-20

The Evidence Bible says this verse discusses light moving, I showed that this verse says nothing of the sort. They are lying.

Job 28:25

OK, so it says “weight” but it doesn’t mean it. Once again the Bible doesn’t really mean what it says.

Leviticus 17:11

Not really, I can eat meat with blood in it, steak still contains lots of blood when it is cooked. Blood doesn’t contain “life”, blood is required by the human body to keep it alive. The claim was that “blood is the source of life and health”, as if it is the only requirement for human life. That is false.

Jonah 2:6

Once again the Bible says one thing and really means another.
So the invisible man in the sky kept Jonah alive with his magic? That isn’t science.

II Samuel 22:16

You proved my point, the verse they are touting as “science” says nothing about their own topic.

Job 38:16

Once again the Bible says one thing and really means another. If it doesn’t really mean what it says then how can you rely on it?

Leviticus 15:13

I didn’t bring it up, the Evidence Bible did, and they are misusing this section of Leviticus to support their claim.

Hey, Brian, you said "Wrong, there is not an infinite number of stars, the actual number is something like 200 billion billion billion, not infinity (which would be impossible because the universe has a finite size)."

So, how do you reconcile "actual number is" with "something like 200 billion billion billion? Come on, now, I want the actual number, not "something like."

Isaiah 40:22
It doesn't take a Hebrew expert to learn that the Hebrew word for "circle" is khug, which means "sphericity" or "roundness". If one must be an expert in a topic to intelligibly discuss that topic, then I must ask you what your credentials are.

You must also remember that the Bible was written in Hebrew, not English. The Hebrew word which meant sphericity has been translated into "circle," which is a broader definition. However, it is not a fault of God and Scripture that translators and language barriers prevent us from understanding the full meaning of the original text.

Dr. Safarti has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry and a B.Sc. in chemistry. I think the man knows about science. Don't believe everything you read.

Jeremiah 33:22
You basically proved the Bible correct, Brian. You said, "I can't count to 200 billion billion billion," and the Bible says, "the host of heaven cannot be numbered" (the same thing you said). The Bible is not saying there are an infinite number of stars. It's simply saying that those stars can't be counted, and you affirmed that.

You also said, "Quoting 'experts' doesn't make your argument correct, that's a logical error called 'appeal to authority'." I never said that the fact that I quoted experts made my argument valid. I quoted experts because they know what they are talking about and can explain things better than I can. The logical fallacy is you rejecting the experts simply because they are experts, and then charging me with "appeal to authority."

Hebrews 11:3
That seems to be what it is saying, Brian. And what you said about eternal matter is incorrect. The Law of Causality demands that all effects have a cause. Otherwise, you end up going in infinite regression, which is completely irrational. The Law of Entropy also works against the argument of eternal matter. God created the world out of nothing, and Hebrews 11:3 acknowledges that.

Job 38:19-20
I don't know. Perhaps when God asked the question, "Where is the way where light dwelleth," His point was to say "Light doesn't dwell in any one spot because it's always moving." That is possible.

Job 28:25
No, it is the translation that causes confusion. Always remember that our limited English language doesn't always capture the fullness of meaning found in the original Hebrew.

You said yourself you didn't know what the verse means, so you can't rightfully say the Bible errs here. Job 28:25 could mean something as simple as the fact that the elements of the wind (i.e. oxygen particles) have weight and density (which they do).

Leviticus 17:11
When was the last time you shot a cow and began eating it (sorry for the grisly picture, but I must get my point across)? That's the point Scripture and I are making. You must drain meat of blood before consuming it.

Next, you made two statements: "Blood doesn't contain life" and "Blood is required by the human body to keep it a live." Truly, to say that "blood contains life" is a more poetic version of the latter statement. They mean the same thing. And nowhere in Leviticus does it say anything as far-fetched as "blood is the only requirement for life and health." To get that out of Leviticus 17:11 is a big stretch.

Jonah 2:6
You wrote, "Once again the Bible says one thing and really means another." Not so. Next you wrote, "So the invisible man in the sky kept Jonah alive with his magic? That isn't science." First of all, God is not an invisible man in the sky. Second of all, God doesn't use magic. And third, you are correct. It isn't science. It is supernatural intervention. It is a point in time where God overruled the natural laws of science (which He can do, because He created those laws).

II Samuel 22:16
Since I have no idea what the Evidence Bible said regarding this passage, I can't debate it.

Job 38:16
Two points. First, I don't know what the original Hebrew translation of "springs of the sea" is, or what it refers to. Second, I must take into account that there are figures of speech in the Bible. The Bible means what it says, Brian, and it sometimes uses metaphorical terms to communicate a message. Whether that is the case here or not, I do not know.

This will probably be my last post on this subject. I enjoyed the debate, gentlemen. I probably won't be back (unless of course I see something that just must be responded to) :).

No one knows the exact number of stars in the universe since stars are born and die daily, but the closest approximation is "70 sextillion stars in the visible universe, or some 70 thousand million million million. That's a 7 followed by 22 zeros" (space.com, 22 July 2003).

The Bible claims that the number of stars is "innumerable", this is clearly false.

Thanks for setting me straight, and for correcting the Bible. It sure is good to finally know just exactly how many stars there are. I always thought math was my best subject, but I am confused since I have just been told that the exact number of stars is actually about 200 billion billion billion, which evidently is exactly the same as approximately 70 sextillion. So much for the Bible being full of errors and contradictions

I never said that one has to be an expert to intelligently discuss a topic, my point is that he is an "expert" in one discipline and shouldn't be used as an expert for some other discipline. As far as Dr. Safarti, I have read a few things he wrote, he sounds like someone trying to bend science to fit into his religious views: he used an outdated argument about neutrinos to try to prove a young universe, and he blamed evolution for the Holocaust and the Columbine shooting.

You say that we can't know what the Bible "really means" because it has been translated, etc. Well, why do you put so faith into it then?

I never said the stars can't be counted, I said I can't count that high one-by-one. See above for a clear approximation of the number of stars in the universe.

Rejecting experts I feel to be in error is not a logical fallacy.

If all effects had a cause, what caused god? This is an ancient argument ("first cause") that was refuted centuries ago.

I assume you mean the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of the universe as a whole always increases (delta S is equal to or greater than 0). The first law of thermodynamics states that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form, this contradicts your claim that god made the universe out of nothing.

It's possible that's what god meant about light, but it doesn't say that. If it said "light moves at a constant speed" or it mentions photons, then yes. But the verse is too vague to make a call either way, that's my point.

Again, the verse about wind doesn't say anything about elements, density, etc, so the vagueness makes the verse irrelevant. You keep saying "could" or "possible", this shows the fuzziness of these "scientific" Bible verses. If you translate a word into another language and then start saying it could mean this or that, you can make it say just about anyting you want.

Even if you drain blood from an animal before cooking there is still blood in the meat, even when you eat it after cooking.

The claim was that "blood is the source of life and health", if it said "a source" I might buy that, but the word "the" implies that it's the only one, and that is nonsense.

YES! The Bible I read says "circle" but it means "roundness" (your words). It says "Where is the way where light dwelleth," but it means "Light doesn't dwell in any one spot because it's always moving." (your words). I've heard lots of christians "translate" Bible verses into something totally different than what it says on the page.

You say that god used divine intervention, he overruled the laws of science. Well, according to scientific laws that doesn't happen. Can you prove an invisible being used his supernatural powers to keep Jonah alive? Do you have any real evidence for this, besides an ancient book of stories?

You said the "Bible means what it says", but above you showed it doesn't. The "days" in Genesis mean days, or they mean billions of years, depending on who you ask. Mary was a virgin, or just a young girl, depending on who you ask (there's that Hebrew translation again!).

You said "Second, I must take into account that there are figures of speech in the Bible. The Bible means what it says, Brian, and it sometimes uses metaphorical terms to communicate a message". A metaphorical term is a figure is speech!

I said the number of stars was "someting like 200 billion billion billion", not an exact number. I looked up some numbers from real astronomers and gave a more exact figure.

As far as the Bible, I can email you lots of contradictions if you'd like.

Brian, I can show you lots of contradictions in this newspaper or your favorite magazine or book if I read it in a wooden, literal way that you do when you quote verses and when you take them out of context of the passage and the culture in which it was written. Do you read everything the way you read the Bible?

Also, there are tons of websites and books that can give answers that can satisfy alleged contradictions in the Bible. However, none of these will satisfy hyperskeptics or those who do not want to treat other ancient texts the same way they attack the Bible.

If I find a contradiction in ANY book or magazine I am reading I take notice, recent, ancient, or in between.

I know a lot of christinas who admit that there are contradictions/mistakes in the Bible, I have seen many of them and they can't be explained away logically.

I have also heard the "explanations" offered on some religious websites, most are fuzzy, some are nonsense. Like the discussion above, if you play around with a verse long enough you can make it "say" anything you want. Look at the Nostradamus "predictions" as an example.

I read the Bible as literal text because that's what christians tell me to do, it's the "literal word of god". I know it's allegory and poetry, but it's the religious folks who say it is literllly true, not me. I am showing that this can't be correct.

Tommy told me today that he believes in racial segregation.