Talk:Counterexamples to the Bible

No counterexamples to the Bible?

Doesn't this become tautological if you are unwilling to consider counterexamples? TylerGD 10:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

The "counterexamples" you posted were repeatedly brought up over the years by atheists, agnostics, and the generally dimwitted over the course of thousands of years; and these "counterexamples" were repeatedly proven wrong. That's "Proven" with a capitol "P". Karajou 10:27, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

Sorry, I must have missed something. Which counterexamples did TylerGD post? If they have all been Proven wrong with a capital P, shouldn't this article address them and state why they are wrong, as with every other counterexample here, instead of just not considering them? --MarcoT2 11:48, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

The page history contains the edits here. I found the alleged "counterexamples" to be remarkably trivial and non-substantive. Our entries here are substantive, and will remain so.--Andy Schlafly 11:59, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

Ok, I understand this necessity. I agree that only the MAJOR counterexamples should be addressed! Thank you, anyway, for posting the link to the edits. --MarcoT2 12:01, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

What should happen is a separate article titled Alleged Biblical contradictions, detailing the passages, what liberals have against them, and why the contradictions don't exist in the first place. Karajou 12:05, 11 August 2010 (EDT

How about the First Law of Thermodynamics? This states that energy may not be created or destroyed, which contradicts Genesis. Also, the creation story says that light was created first. Light is not possible without a spacetime manifold, which was not created at that time. The population of the earth is much too large too soon after the flood. Assuming 8 humans survived the flood, every woman over 15 years old would have to have 50 children to produce a large enough population by the time of the Exodus from Egypt. (Assuming: the flood was in the year 3000 BC, and the Exodus was in 2500 BC). And, even assuming this is possible, it does nothing to address the sudden rise of different races.

I have an open mind about it. Let's take a look at your arguments:

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy may be transformed from one type to another, and it is all the time. That's what creation presumably was.

See Counterexamples to Relativity, which is a far longer list than Counterexamples to the Bible. Perhaps the goofy "spacetime manifold" never really existed. Are you open-minded about that?

I'm surprised by your population argument, because I've seen analysis that says the population levels today are just what one would expect from having just a few people in 3000 BC.--Andy Schlafly 20:20, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

Now I'm confused. Our critic here is claiming that the First Law (it's a law, mind you) of Thermodynamics states that energy may not be created or destroyed. It contradicts Genesis. Okay...got that. Thermodynamics One contradicts Genesis. But at the same time, how did his big bang theory happen? You can't create or destroy energy, that's what he said. But there had to have been energy created (from nothing, I might add) in order to get a great big bang for his big bang theory, and that's a lot of energy created and destroyed of which he says can't be created or destroyed. And, while he's defending that little law in science, I'll bet he's denying Thermodynamics Two because its statements about entropy and energy left to itself seem to contradict evolution. In short, he's stating something came from nothing, leading to things getting better, both of which contradict each of those laws of Thermodynamics.

Makes the case for "In the beginning, God created..." even stronger, doesn't it? Karajou 20:33, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

I'm not claiming that "something came from nothing" in the Big Bang. The sum of the energy contained in the mass of the universe equals the sum of gravitational potential energy in the universe. This is quite an easily calculable conclusion which suggests that the net energy in the universe is zero. So, while I agree with the "came from nothing" statement, I disagree with the "something". If you are going to throw out unscientific phrases, you should say "A net nothing came from nothing". The zero-energy universe is becoming more and more studied, and may well be a plausible explanation for cosmogenesis.

This explanation is in contradiction to the Creation story, in which light was created with no negative energy counterpart.

A caveat; the zero-energy universe is still in the preliminary phases of study, and may turn out to be false. However, in 20 years, I can guarantee scientists will have a clearer understanding of the beginning of the universe, while theists will response with "*shrug* God did it".

In response to the statement about how "goofy spacetime manifold never existed", are you saying that there is no spacetime currently?

Also, I fully support the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there is no contradiction with regards to evolution; the entropy of the sun is increasing more than entropy due to life on earth is decreasing.