₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
Every reasonable person can see that there is nothing like second guessing in my statement. So you do not have any valid thing to say.

I doubt if you know what second guessing is

Dtruthspeaker:
Another proof that the Bible is True for you are truly "like" God. Not God Himself or all God, but "like" God!

And as I told them, no one has said you are God or omniscient but you are certainly "like" God and as proven already, you have confirmed your possession of omniscientness, so surely you can use it to understand God, if you want.

I would like some of those kush youre on

Dantedasz:
Anastasia darling,
Did you finally get yourself a man or are you still searching?

She's prolly using a dillldo til the good lord sends down the heavenly hunk for her

Caveatemptor:
Anastasia!
Wow!
Where have you been?
As I have always told you, delusions like devil, demons, angels, Satan, heaven and hell are non issues to me since I don't believe in them.
I distinctly remember you preaching against the anti covid jab because your pastor preached against it as devilish. Did you finally take the jab?
Anastasia, you need to post more often.

Dude is a comical relief

Anas09:
Guy, say what you want now that you have the freedom to. because, very soon, you will no longer have that freewill to. And it won't be YHWH stopping you, it will be your master stopping you. I listened to one scientist postulating that in 15yrs from now, AI robots will take over the running of our society considerably.
And, you know what? These AIs are not from God. Elon Musk says AIs are driven by ETS. Do you know what ETS are? Demons. Yes demons. They will take away your freedom.
Why God allows you to insult him and go free, it's so that you wld appreciate it when Satan takes away your right. AI won't recognize who is an atheist or theist.
So, buckle up, it's coming

Whoa. ETs are demons? Interesting. What other tales have you got up your sleeves, sir

Anas09:
The freewill is the air you still breath now. The fact that your fingers are not numb after typing this. Freewill is that you choose to insult him as you like, but you carry on as though nothing happened. But, a day will come that you wish you had chosen not to do what you do now.

Are you aware the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave you a free will but you have been insulting His Holy Limbs

Caveatemptor:
Oga,
As other posters on this thread have told you. I am not a god neither do I claim to be omniscient!
This your argument no follow at all!

You have better chance of getting a logical reasoning from a wet stone than DTruthSpeaker

MightySparrow:
I don't remember you presented inadequacies to me. Represent it please.

Please go back to that thread, or click on the link I put up there in that post

MightySparrow:
Okay, I admit I misunderstood you. I once belonged to a group, Navigators, a time came some of them came to visit us in Nigeria. The leader of my group, a surgeon, from ABU, was introducing them . One of them was an astronaut! I thought people like that should not believe in a personal God, I was wrong.

People believe in anything. Sometimes it clashes with their profession. I don't know how they handle it. I also wonder how an archaeologist or paleontologist believe in any god. Must be confusing for them cos their work relies on evolution and eschews creationism

MightySparrow:
Exactly my point. If a percentage not matter how small ,can have a different view from a whole lot. That is enough to work with. If for instance, the average number of people in a class is 45.3, you don't have ⅛ of human being. So, since we have a number that view things differently, we should now find out why?
In Islam, Prophet Mohammed wrote about sperm developing from the backbone. Yet there are professors of medicine that believe his message. So, I don't still see how science goes against believe in a personal or corporate God.
About Albert Einstein I read my own in the special edition of Time magazine. The Man of the Century. as we cannot absolutely reject Wikipedia, I don't really take their reportage too seriously. Anybody can edit and write anything.

Again, this is you tryna employ one of your dodge tactics. This was your earlier post
There's a no known branches of science that are filled with atheists. Majority of them believe in one thing on the other.
And I just showed you that in fact a good number of scientists don't believe in any god. So how does this back up your point?
And I don't even understand your statistical example. Care to explain?
About Einstein, what I wrote was a quote of his, not even what others think of him. He said those with his mouth. So Wiki cannot manufacture quotes

MightySparrow:
Adeboye has Ph. D in Mathematics, Oyedepo, Chris Oyakhilome are not pure scientists bur architects. Oyedepo bagged pH. D in human Development not Honourary. Anyway, this doesn't remove the fact that Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Michael Faraday were leading scientists in their time. So, how does your MBBS oppose God? There are several medical practionals that believe in one deity or the other all over the world. Ben Carson is one. If you schooled in Nigeria, or elsewhere, are all your lectures atheists?

1. In your earlier deposition you said Oyedepo and Kumuyi are eggheads. Turns out neither Oyedepo nor Kumuyi is. Now you're twisting your argument by saying they aint 'pure scientists'. Lol
2. Oyedepo studied architecture at Kwara Polytechnic but did not obtain any degree. No site would tell you he obtained a degree there. And the PhD he got was from a fake, unrecognized and unaccredited university of Honolulu, which is rubbish
3. I have said it before. Newton wasn't a christian. He was Aryan. Galileo wasn't even a catholic. He was afraid of the Catholic induced witch hunting then which would have killed him for any contrary belief. In fact for even saying the earth was round(which was a contrary church belief) he was on house arrest, and died there.
4. You're missing my point completely, which I believe is intentional.
You mentioned most of your pastors have higher degrees than me. I listed mine, (even though I didn’t list my other qualifications) so you can compare it with your pastors. I didn't list it to oppose anybody or insinuate anything. Many physicians have many beliefs. Not my business

joyandfaith:
Some who believe in predestination reason basically as follows: God is omniscient. He knows everything, even what is going to happen in the future. He knows what each person is going to do with his life, and he already knows the exact moment and manner of each person’s death. So, according to their thinking, when the time comes for an individual to make a decision, his choice cannot be other than the way God has foreseen and foreordained it; otherwise, God would not be all-knowing. Does this reasoning seem sound to you? Consider what its logical consequences would be.

If some force has already determined your future, then trying to take care of yourself is useless. Choosing to smoke or not to smoke would make no difference to your health or that of your children. Wearing a seat belt while riding in an automobile would have no effect on your safety. But this is faulty logic. Statistics show that people who take precautions suffer fewer fatal consequences. Carelessness can result in tragedy.

Consider another line of reasoning. If God chooses to foreknow everything, then even before he made Adam and Eve, he would have known that they would disobey him. But when God told Adam that he must not eat from “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” or he would die, did God already know that Adam would eat from it? (Genesis 2:16, 17) When God told the first couple: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth,” did he know that their wonderful prospect of life in a paradise was doomed to failure? Of course not.​—Genesis 1:28.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the idea that God foreknows all decisions would mean that he is responsible for all that happens​—including wars, injustices, and suffering. Is that possible? A clear answer is provided by what God says about himself.

“You Must Choose”

The Scriptures state that “God is love” and that he is “a lover of justice.” He has always urged his people: “Hate what is bad, and love what is good.” (1 John 4:8; Psalm 37:28; Amos 5:15) On numerous occasions he encouraged his loyal ones to choose a virtuous course. For example, when Jehovah concluded a covenant with the ancient nation of Israel, he said to them, through Moses: “I do take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today, that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the malediction; and you must choose life in order that you may keep alive, you and your offspring.” (Deuteronomy 30:19) Did God establish ahead of time the choice that those individuals would make? Evidently not.

Joshua, a leader of God’s people in ancient times, exhorted his countrymen: “Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve . . . As for me and my household, we shall serve Jehovah.” (Joshua 24:15) Similarly, God’s prophet Jeremiah said: “Obey, please, the voice of Jehovah in what I am speaking to you, and it will go well with you, and your soul will continue to live.” (Jeremiah 38:20) Would a just and loving God encourage people to do right in the hope of receiving a reward if he knew that they were destined to fail? No. Such encouragement would be hypocritical.

So when good or bad things happen in your life, it is not because these events are inevitable. Very often, ‘unforeseen occurrences’ are simply the consequences of other people’s decisions​—whether wise or unwise. (Ecclesiastes 9:11) No, your future is not planned out before you, and your own decisions determine what your everlasting future will be.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

▪ Did God decide ahead of time that Adam and Eve would sin?​—Genesis 1:28; 2:16, 17.

▪ What qualities of God rule out predestination?​—Psalm 37:28; 1 John 4:8.

▪ What responsibility do you have?​—Joshua 24:15.

I guess you are a Witness, and believe Yahweh isn't omniscient, right?

Dtruthspeaker:
As i said, you know your children will pass or fail jamb or will play football and may wound themselves, yet all these Knowings did not stop you from seeing.

Knowing and seeing aka watching are 2 different things.

Reread this thing you wrote. Does it make sense. Are you saying an omniscient god is second guessing himself?

Dantedasz:
It's like you do not understand what it means when you say something/somebody is OMNISCIENT!

Lol. I have had this debate with many Christians. They truly don't understand what omniscient is

MightySparrow:
There are no inadequacies in the Bible. If you are reading it for criticism, you can't grasp anything. Why is it that no christians agree with you. Yet, there are many Christians that have acquired more certificates than you. Pastor Chris Oyakhilome had an D.Sc, not Honourary. Adeboye Oyedepo, Kumuyi, etc are gifted eggheads. Paul Enenche, Uma Ukpai etc are medical doctors.
Don't just stay in one obscure corner and be playing all - wise.

1. I wanted to engage you on those lies and errors in the bible on this thread https://www.nairaland.com/7659505/book-bible-gaffes
But you turned tail and ran away, saying you don't engage atheists. Yet here you are engaging me cos this topic doesn't expose the Bible fvck ups
2. None of the Christians there on that thread could counter any of the errors and lies, and I haven't even finished the errors that I have in my archives. I kept the best for last
3. No. None of those pastors have more certificates than me. I have an MBBCH, plus others.
Pastor Chris Ph.Ds were all honorary, contrary to your claim.
Adeboye Oyedepo, Kumuyi have their basic qualifications
Paul Enenche is the only physician there while also contrary to your claims, Ukpai isn't a physician.
So lie another lie

Dtruthspeaker:
Knowing and seeing are 2 different things.

Eg you know your children shall pass or fail jamb yet you see what they shall do.

Wtf are you on?
If I, an omniscient being know something as a fact, why would I 'see what they shall do'?
That means I'm not even sure
And thus not omniscient

MightySparrow:
[/b]

Einstein prayed the traditional Hebrew prayer before gis death. There's a no known branches of science that are filled with atheists. Majority of them believe in one thing on the other.

1. No. Einstein isn't religious. And I just searched the internet and couldn't find any strong evidence he did any Hebrew prayer.
This is what I found.
He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever." Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me." He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#:~:text=He%20clarified%20however%20that%2C%20%22I,lifetime%20with%20several%20humanist%20groups.

2. In fact, a Christian or religious scientist is an endangered specie.
Only 14.6 percent of the mathematicians embraced the God hypothesis (versus 5.5 percent of the biologists).

But here is something you probably didn’t know. Most mathematicians believe in heaven.
This is almost certainly based on a survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding religious belief conducted in 1998 by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, and published in Nature Magazine.

It's important to understand that membership in the National Academy of Sciences is by election only, and only the very top level, elite scientists make it in. A PhD is virtually a requirement, and most are very highly respected research scientists working in academia. Nearly 10% of the membership are Nobel Prize winners. So the viewpoints of this group concerning religion are almost certainly different from the more broad group you call "Scientists in the U.S.", which would include a much larger pool and which would probably be somewhat closer in their responses to the population as a whole.

The survey found that only 7% of NAS members (that responded to the survey) indicated a belief in a "personal god". 72.2% disbelieve in a personal god, and the remaining 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism" towards the idea of a personal god.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/review/Holt-t.html#:~:text=Only%2014.6%20percent%20of%20the,Most%20mathematicians%20believe%20in%20heaven.

MightySparrow:
Yọu aren't actually right. Isaac Newton is a colossus in the field of science, he wrote exposition on the prophecy of Daniel, Michael Faraday was an organist in his church very devoted, he gave us electricity you are enjoying today, he rejecteed the honour given to him by the Queen, he wasa a devoted Christian. Humphrey Davy, and a host of others. Our own man Gabriel Oyibo whose work in the Theory of Everything (GAGUT) is still under scrutiny for possible Alfred Nobel prize is a devoted Christian.
Aso, I will be striving to be my best in both.

Religion has not proven God wrong. We, both scientists and religionists have limitations when we talk about knowledge, we are both searching.

You totally misunderstand me. Did their religious mind interfere with their scientific mind? No. Lemme explain. Newton didn’t say 'This Apple fall to the ground because god did it' instead he investigated it. Besides I told you he isn't a Christian. He repeatedly distanced himself from the idea of a personal God. He refused a tradition Jewish burial. All in all, not very religious.
About Davy, I couldn't get anything religious about him apart from this quote 'Davy believed that understanding science would allow man to control the world around him, beginning an uneasy tension between science and religion'
All in all, you totally ignored the fact there are more atheists and agnostic scientists and that they have made the world better

MightySparrow:
Check it. He is the only God that tells us about the beginning even the first man and woman, the parents of all human beings with names and location. He is the only God that hàs written the programme of the earth in prophecies and has proven correct till now. He is the only one that has talked about everything happening now. He is the only God that personality shows Himself to people to convert them when necessary. He is the only one that walked His own through all civilizations and has record in history. His name is I Am. Hallelujah!

1. How did he write the creation story in the Bible? Did he use pen and paper?
2. Which specific prophecies have come to pass? Besides many non christians have made prophesies that happened better than the Bible. I hope you know Covid was prophesied by non christian book but no christian book or prophet saw it
3. How did Yahweh talk about what's happening now?
4. He showed himself only in the bible and subsequently has been doing a good job of hiding from us
5. What do u mean walking his own?

God is truly mighty, see as atheists keep hallucinating about someone they claim does not exist.

Same way you lot hallucinate on Islamic threads. In fact there are more christians in islamic threads than the muslims themselves. Reason why Seun had to separate you guys

TheMadame:
Education. Many of us attended missionary schools.
Like I said don't throw away the baby with the bath water even if religion has its evident flaws that can mostly be attributed to the leadership.

True. Thats a good one. Though I didn’t attend it

TheMadame:
Without prejudice to your points you do not throw away the baby with the bath water. Religion and the bible do have their uses and have shaped civilisations.

I hope you know slavers use the Bible to back their act

DrLiveLogic:
No. And god never told anyone they need a book to determine right and wrong. The conscience does that. And just as you believe in a conscience you can't see, it is possible to realise god without seeing him.
The reason for giving laws is that laws on a paper are like a document that's untampered with. However, just like you are imperfect, and imperfection affects your memory, intelligence and all. So does your imperfection tamper with your conscience, hence the need for a document for universal reference

Yahweh told some people to stone some people to death for having foreskin and working on sabbath. How do you see that

joyandfaith:
At the that time, your gods of science thought earth was flat and had no idea about water cycle but Bible put that in simple sentence that people would understand. Bible is not a scientific book. is that not amazing.
Ancient medical doctors had little or no knowledge of germs and pathogens. Egyptians used such “remedies” as lizard blood, pelican dung, dead mice, urine, and moldy bread. Human as well as animal excrement was also commonly used in their medical procedures.
The ancient Egyptians picked up a variety of parasites from the contaminated waters of the Nile River and its irrigation canals. Likewise, many infants in Egypt died of diarrhea and similar disorders caused by contaminated food.
can u show any ancient book that touches matter of water cycle, earth being circle not flat and health matter?

That JW book you copied this is dead wrong. They are feeding you with poison. Ancient Egyptians knew much about science and technology. Do you know the pyramids came before your Bible was supposedly written?

More evidence of the unscientific nature of the Bible which these JW and Christians lie about
Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he [Jesus] forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

Matthew 13:32:1 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.[4]

This argues that Jesus was wrong because there are smaller seeds in existence, like the orchid. One attempt to rationalise this, used by J. P. Holding [5] is to use a process called illegitimate totality transfer, where a single possible meaning out of many for a specific word in the original text is argued to be the only possible translation solely because it supports the inerrantist viewpoint: in this case, translating the Greek mikros (root of "microscopic" as "least" (5 other uses in the KJV, 5 least / less in the NAS) rather than little or small (20 uses for these two in the KJV, 41 references to something small in the NAS). It is difficult to make sense of the suggested translation: in what sense is mustard the "least" of seeds, compared to, say, the seeds of weeds? How is the seed useless if it grows into something great? And given the other half of the sentence refers to the mustard becoming tall, it makes no sense to say the first part is an "evaluation of worth" as Holding does. Holding also ignores that least is a synonym for smallest in English as well, so his totality transfer doesn't even solve his problem. Many non-KJV translations have outright rejected this attempted rationalisation and simply translate mikros as "smallest" in this case.

The NIV at one point took a more active stance of shoving the word "your" into the verse with no real precedent, but this was regarded as so unacceptable that the 2011 edition removed it.

Some versions refer to the mustard as a "shrub", which Holding characterises as an incorrect translation, claiming the word used (Lachanon) only means "vegetable" or "herb." This cunning argument is a win unless anyone happens to take the radical step of looking at Strong's Concordance, in which case one will find it has one other meaning he's not bothering to tell us about. Hm, "garden plant", but clearly "shrub" is a completely unacceptable translation because he says so.

A second problem is that the Bible incorrectly states mustard grows into a tree: rather than trying to BS his way out of this with the Lexicon or Concordance (because there are no alternate meanings for the word used), Holding takes the "it was right back then" approach by claiming that mustard would be classified as a tree because it is tall, ignoring that it never looks remotely like a tree: we're apparently just supposed to believe him that the classification system used to work this way. And one would think Jesus, being the guy who created trees and all, would know what was and was not one.

Ant behavior
Proverbs 6:6-8 (Willibrord) The English translation would look something like this:

6:6 Look at the ant, you lazy bum, watch her behavior and become wise.

6:7 She has no captain, no supervisor, no ruler,

6:8 but she makes sure that she has food in the summer and safeguards her food during harvest

The idea that the ant is an individual animal that does everything herself simply isn't true from a biological standpoint. Ants live in a colony with many subdivisions, which include workers and queens. Most ants in reality do only have one mission and that is to make sure that their queen is fed and alive to pass on the genes to a succeeding population. So, in a sense, worker ants do have rulers and the ant population does survive as a population, where every individual is dependent on another.

The Earth was created in 6 days…. How was the days being ascertained?
Adam and Eve. Genetics. Why don't i have 6 toes and 7 fingers? How does this explain Asians, Blacks, Native Americans, and white people?
Noah. Um…how did he get snakes and cats to not eat the mice, and other natural predators like lions and tigers and bears not eat him and his wife and kids. Oh my! And seriously wtf did Noah do about termites and bees, wasps and tarantulas, and poisonous spiders and Cobra snakes. You think he’d just let them die than handle them. Unless he spoke snake and spider. And the ahem.. .. genetics, we would all be six toed and 7 fingered inbreds all named Billy-Joe-Bob s with no racial differeces. Japan would also have a flood myth. I haven't heard of one yet. Noah’s flood myth, does not account for other religions.
Which are the major irrefutable unscientific mistakes in the Bible?
Obviously if the science is irrefutable, Christians have found a way to explain away the Bible passages. It’s not like there’s some Bible verse that says “the earth is flat” which they haven’t noticed yet. So you have to decide for yourself how good you think their explanation is.

Some obvious ones off the top of my head:

Creationism. Genesis 1-2
There are two different stories there, which contradict each other (e.g. was woman/Eve created before or after the animals?)
Christians say that “day” doesn’t mean a literal 24 hour period, but the text doesn’t just say “day”, it says “evening and morning”
even if the “days” are millions of years, the time line is all wrong, and there’s no mention of the really important creatures such as bacteria or insects - how can you have plants without insects?
with evolution there’s no first man, no first woman, and no first person.
firmament. In the above passage, and again in the story of Noah, the Bible talks about a “firmament”, or in some translations a “dome” or “vault” (as in the translation I linked to above). Note that the Bible says it keeps out the water above the earth, and that the sun, moon and stars all sit within that firmament. This only works if you assume a flat earth. And it only works if you think the sky is blue because there’s water above the sky.
Stars. The same passage I linked to above says that the stars were created for our benefit, for navigation and telling the seasons. In reality the universe is phenomenally big and earth is an infinitesimally small speck within it. This means that of course the rest of the universe - ie many of the stars, are much older than the earth, and existed long before humans did and will continue to exist after humans cease to exist.
linguistics. Not sure if you count this as a science, but the story of Babel (here: Genesis 11) tells us that the linguistic diversity today stems from God confusing everybody about 4000 years ago. Today we know that there’s a “family tree” of languages, not just lots of unconnected languages. There’s no way that all the “grandfather” languages could have arisen and died out i such a short time.
π. If you want to get really pedantic - which Christians love when it suits them - you could say that the Bible implies that π=3. Or you could be impressed that they were close enough, when they didn’t have a way to talk about fractions. "The Bible Says pi = 3"
Some people say that verses like Ecclesiastes 1:5, Psalm 19:6, Psalm 104:5 , Joshua 10:1-15, or Isaiah 38:1-8 suggest a geocentric world view, although I guess that’d debatable.
There’s also stories like Jacob’s goats, which Christians might say were a miracle rather than a statement about goat breeding, or the Nephilim, which seem unlikely. Or the constant phrase “the four corners of the earth” which Christians would say is just a figure of speech. Another thing that should give you pause for thought are all the “evil spirits” that were responsible for people’s physical or mental illnesses in the gospels, which today we would understand as being illnesses or abnormalities that have little or nothing spiritual about them.

So its’ not that many, but there’s not that many scientific claims in the Bible. The few it makes - notably, creation - don’t hold up very well. There’s also historical errors in the gospels, but that’s another story.

joyandfaith:
Can u point to bible verses that say that? Please speak with evidences. Can u pls show us the evidence of Jehovah in cage by gods of science?



Bible is scientifically accurate. Bible talks about earth being spherical and water cycle facts that scientists at that time were not aware of. Check this-
He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.”
Job 26:7
“All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.”
Ecclesiastes 1:7

There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.”
Isaiah 40:22


Bible principles on hygiene were ahead of their times

Shortly before the nation of Israel entered the Promised Land some 35 centuries ago, God said that he would protect them against “the terrible diseases” that they had known in Egypt. (Deuteronomy 7:15) One way he did this was by giving them detailed instructions on disease control and hygiene. For example:

The nation’s code of laws required bathing and clothes washing.—Leviticus 15:4-27.

Regarding human waste, God stated: “A private place should be designated for use outside the camp, and there is where you should go. A peg should be part of your equipment. When you squat outside, you should dig a hole with it and then cover your excrement.”—Deuteronomy 23:12, 13.

People who were thought to have a communicable disease were quarantined—kept away from others for a time. Before returning, those who recovered from sickness had to wash their garments and bathe in water if they were to be considered “clean.”—Leviticus 14:8, 9.

Anyone who touched a dead body was quarantined.—Leviticus 5:2, 3; Numbers 19:16.

Israel’s laws reflected medical concepts and views on sanitation that were far ahead of their time.

Elsewhere, primitive standards of hygiene were prevalent. For example:

Waste was deposited in streets. Polluted water, contaminated food, and other kinds of refuse created unsanitary conditions that contributed to a high rate of disease and infant mortality.

Ancient medical doctors had little or no knowledge of germs and pathogens. Egyptians used such “remedies” as lizard blood, pelican dung, dead mice, urine, and moldy bread. Human as well as animal excrement was also commonly used in their medical procedures.

The ancient Egyptians picked up a variety of parasites from the contaminated waters of the Nile River and its irrigation canals. Likewise, many infants in Egypt died of diarrhea and similar disorders caused by contaminated food.

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/gods-laws-hygiene-ahead-of-time/

Lol. The bible is so unscientific and cretarded.
Look at these points.

This aspect of methodological naturalism is also tied into the question of falsifiability - the idea that there must be a theoretical way in which a claim could be disproved in order for it to be science. For example, there is no way that a claim such as: "A god created the world with the appearance of age last Thursday" could be tested or disproved. And if it cannot be tested, it cannot even theoretically be disproved (falsified) and thus it cannot be a scientific claim. A somewhat different question associated with disproof is whether a statement is both and falsifiable and has actually been falsified. For example the claim "the Earth and the universe came into existence within seven days of each other" is a falsifiable claim - and it is also one which is easily falsified. In consequence, neither the "Last Thursday" claim nor the "Seven day creation" claim is "scientific" - but for different reasons.

Another aspect of science is the question of evidence. Evidence is crucial to the scientific method - if no evidence is found for a proposed hypothesis then it does not meet even the lowest threshold for scientific acceptance.

The question of evidence is also strongly associated with the concept of burden of proof. Simply stated, this concept maintains that it the responsibility of the person (or book) presenting a claim to provide evidence for its veracity - it is not the responsibility of third parties to disprove any claim.

Gross errors
Although this article focuses more on areas where the bible gets scientific detail wrong, it is also important to remember that a literalistic reading of the bible also contains gross scientific errors in cosmology, biology, geology, and linguistics. More information about each of these points is contained in the linked articles.

Six day creation
The idea that the Earth and the Universe were created in six days a few thousand years ago is completely unscientific. The age of the universe is calculated as being around 13.8 billion years while Earth is calculated to have formed 4.5 billion years ago. The difference between these two dates is significantly greater than six days. For those biblical literalists who argue for a 7,000 year old earth, there are multiple lines of evidence against a recent creation and—by extension—against a six day creation.

Human evolution
The claim that humans were the result of a special creation event at the end of this six day period is wrong. In fact, the evidence that humans and other animals evolved gradually over a period of some three to four billion years is overwhelming.

A global flood
There is no evidence for a global flood event as described in the Bible. While there is evidence for large floods in regions spanning all over the world, there is nothing to suggest one giant flood engulfed the planet surface. Many ancient tribes and religions across the globe have flood myths, likely arising from past events. This does not suggest the flood described in the story of Noah actually occurred.

Tower of Babel
There is no linguistic evidence for any of the events included in the Tower of Babel myth.

Biology
Anatomy of insects
Leviticus 11:20-23 (NIV):

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

While some would see this as a scientific error, J.P. Holding has an "explanation":[3]

Is this an error -- since insects have six legs, not four, and since "fowl" have two legs, not four? The reference to "fowl" is thought by some skeptics to refer to birds, but the word used here is 'owph, which merely means a creature with wings -- it is the same word used in verse 21 (flying). The reference in both cases is to insects. But there is an even better - and more correct - answer.

Quite simply, the big back legs on the locust, etc. were not counted as "legs" in the same sense as the other legs. Let's use an illustration from our popular literature, George Orwell's Animal Farm. In this story, Snowball the pig invented the slogan, "Four legs good, two legs bad" so as to exclude humans from Animal Farm society. The geese and other fowl objected, because they had only two legs. Snowball explained (more clearly in the book than in the movie) that in animal terms, the birds' wings counted as legs because they were limbs of propulsion, not manipulation, as a human's arms and hands were.

Now note the differentiation in Leviticus above -- referring to "legs above the feet" for leaping. The "feet" are being differentiated from the "legs above the feet" because of their difference in function. They are legs, but in a different sense than the "four" legs which are just called "feet." We are being told of two types of legs: The "on all four" legs (which are nowhere called legs; they are only called "feet" [v. 23]), and the "leaping legs." It is clear that the Hebrews regarded the two large, hopping hind limbs of the locust and the other insects of the same type, which are the only types of insects mentioned here (we now translate "beetle" as "cricket", as something different than the other four limbs - perhaps because they were used primarily for vertical propulsion, whereas the other limbs were for scurrying around. (Shifts of terminology like this happen even today; check this proposal to redefine "planet".)

What the above explanation so clearly misses is the fact that when the Bible mentions that “All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you” [Group A] this group does not include those with leaping legs as shown by the fact that the very next passage states “There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.” [Group B]

Now if the passages lacked the first half discussing Group A, evangelical apologists such as J.P. Holding may have some ground. But as the biblical text clearly differentiates Group A (those with no jointed legs) as separate to Group B (those with said jointed legs) and yet both groups are defined as having four legs, this argument can be of no defense. Even if J.P Holding were correct on the still unsubstantiated basis that the ancient Hebrews defined crickets and similar insects of Group B as having four typical legs and two "jointed legs" for leaping,that still would not explain the missing legs of the beetles and other non-leaping insects from Group A which are discussed separately.