Christians where are scientists correct and incorrect in each discipline?

[Turbo SS]

This is something that bugs me.  Christians just casually throw away what scientists say about certain subjects i.e. evolution.  They completely ignore that scientists are some of the smartest people in the world and spend their entire careers trying to find answers about the universe.  Its like all that hard work and experiments mean nothing.  How would you feel if you thought you were really good at your job that you had been doing for 20 years and some lay person came up and said your doing it wrong because they read some ancient book written by desert people who said the way you do your job is wrong

So which parts do you believe and which parts dont you believe.  For example, do you believe astromers/physicists can accurately calculate the speed of light and determine distances?  Does it take 8.5 minutes for light to travel from the sun to the earth.  If so, and you believe in creationism then please explain where the equation for the speed of light stops working.  Astromers/physicists use  this equation to determine distances of stars, galaxies etc from the earth.  Some are billions of years away.  That means it took the light from a particular galaxy billions of years to reach the earth.  But if the earth is only several thousand years old then that means the equation for the speed of light is wrong and that galaxy is really really close to us.  So can they accurately measure the distance to the sun? to Jupiter? to the next nearest star?  Please explain at which point it is no longer accurate and show how you disproved their equation.

Another example is biology?  Do plants really use photosynthesis?  Are micro organisms, diseases and things studied under the microscope real? Do you believe they only fail in studying evolution or are there other areas incorrect in biology? please explain.

Please explain where other science specialties such as archaeology get it right and where the cut off point is and they fall on their face.

I am really curious where this cutoff point is determined in each science?  Do you use that same magical decoder ring from Biblical interpretation on the sciences as well?

You guys are so certain they are wrong you should have Nobel Prizes in virtually every field of science! 


Feel free to add other disciplines I forgot.

[ParkingPlaces]

You're asking a good question, Turbo.

The carte blanche dissing of all inconvenient science based on their incomplete knowledge of everything does not go over well with me. Having someone who thinks they are a fossil expert (because they heard Pat Robertson mention them once on his TV show) smugly dispute radiometric dating or geologic stratification when they haven't the slightest idea of what either one is gets tired fast.

They think the speed of light is however fast you can throw a flashlight. They think gravity is just a theory so it can't be true. They never answer when we ask why it is that human fossils are never found with dinosaurs, even though they all supposedly died in the same flood. But they'll repeat ad infinitum the story of how the strata of the Grand Canyon is obviously flood caused and clearly formed quickly. Without giving us any clue as to what the f**k they are talking about.

Science provides information which is inconsistent with a lie. And they try to make it the fault of science. And the best they can do is quote each other over and over (radio carbon dating is not accurate, there are no transitional forms, etc.). They have to ask us for links because they haven't evolved enough to use Google or Wikipedia. And then they don't read them. But yet they argue. And think they're winning.

Somewhere out there, though, should be a christian who can answer your question. One who understands the intricacies of the science/fundy split, and who can explain in cogent writings exactly where they draw the line. And why. And provide evidence and/or philosophical justification for said rip in the fabric of reality.

Hint to fundies: If you excuse starts with "Dude, jesus LOOOOVES you!" you are not that person. If your mantra is "Uh, how can something come from nothing?", you aren't either. If you were home schooled and adamantly believe as true the drawings of dinosaurs with saddles in your textbooks, go away. And if you think there is scientific literature anywhere that says humans descended from monkeys you probably can't read this anyway.

But I do hope there is a christian out there who thinks the world is truly six to ten thousand years old and who has scored higher than a D- in at least one middle school science class who can answer Turbo's question.

Note: I'm not saying christians are stupid. About science they seem to be. Otherwise they may be brilliant. But judging by what we get here on this site, you couldn't prove it by me.

[One Above All]

Does it disprove the Bible? If yes, then it's wrong. It's that simple.

[Anfauglir]

A sad and lonely bookmark in the forlorn hopes that there is a believer out there who can answer the OP.

[Tero]

You want to be Christian and a sciency techy person? I suggest computers or mining engineering. Much easier that way. Though one might still ponder where the rocks come from and when.

[monkeymind]

I'm gonna have a math test 2morra. Let's see, should I study the bible 2nite? It has lots about cubits and stuff. 
Nah, I better read my math book.

I'm gonna have an English test. I better read the King James, he was English wasn't he? Where's the chapter on dangling participles and double negatives? Nah, I better read my English book.

I have to write a report for science class on evolution. Let's see ....that's Genesis. In the beginning.... I'm gonna nail this one!

[Turbo SS]

Hint to fundies: If you excuse starts with "Dude, jesus LOOOOVES you!" you are not that person. If your mantra is "Uh, how can something come from nothing?", you aren't either. If you were home schooled and adamantly believe as true the drawings of dinosaurs with saddles in your textbooks, go away. And if you think there is scientific literature anywhere that says humans descended from monkeys you probably can't read this anyway.

But I do hope there is a christian out there who thinks the world is truly six to ten thousand years old and who has scored higher than a D- in at least one middle school science class who can answer Turbo's question.

Yes exactly. if you start with the nothing cant come from nothing, make a new thread or talk in one of the other million creationist vs evolution threads.  I am just looking for the dividing line and the justification of where and why science is divided from right and wrong.  Thank you for expanding on this subject.  I would love to see some of our resident scientists counter if any christian does reply.  I know we have a micro biologist on this site but not sure who else.

Maybe we will get lucky and one will stumble on this thread.  I may have to copy paste it on a different debate forum that has more christians on it. 

[MadBunny]

Good question Turbo, from what I've seen usually it's that they have a predefined conclusion, and they're trying to shoehorn evidence to fit their existing conclusion.


So, if they figure the bible is accurate, and it lists genealogy from Adam to Jesus, then they can figure out how old the earth is from that.  It's child logic, but so long as you make the obviously moronic choice to accept the bibles information as accurate then perfectly logical within that framework.  Generally they do not bother to check and see if any of the ideas they're working with can be falsified before they start either.




It's all predicated on the bullshit idea that the book they got it from is correct in the first place.  Why is it supposed to be correct?  Because it says it is.
Seriously, who could question credentials like that?  If that were the case then we could rewrite the whole universe simply by authoring a new one.  If you'll pardon me I'm going to go create a world with Valkyries, nanotechnology life extension,  and robots in it.  Then I'll take a vacation at Trantor.

Even the most casual attempt at veracity will show that it's wrong astonishingly easy.  Those attempts are rebuffed because the kind of people who base their entire worldview around one single book being correct despite all the rather obvious evidence to the contrary clearly can't handle the truth.




So to answer your question more concisely, Christians figure that scientists are wrong where they do not attribute 'god' for the things that work.
After all, tide goes in, tide goes out.. how do you explain that?

[kin hell]

A sad and lonely bookmark in the forlorn hopes that there is a believer out there who can answer the OP.

Ditto

although labelling all christians with this is as bad as calling all atheists bald. (is that how it goes?)

Creationists and their ilk fer-shore....

Many other christians however don't dis science, they instead don't read (or think about) the bible, or they majick the disconnects away by taking positions regarding their faith that display all the rigid fixity of blancmange.

[natlegend]

But, but, but... scientists are all part of a well coordinated, worldwide conspiracy to tell LIES!! All of them!

[One Above All]

But, but, but... scientists are all part of a well coordinated, worldwide conspiracy to tell LIES!! All of them!

Exactly! The lies just seem to work in practice (computers, drugs[1], construction, plumbing, toilets, medicine in general, movies, space exploration, heliocentrism, cellphones, et cetera) because it's all a conspiracy!!!
However, christian scientists don't lie!!! They're trying to stop all these lies!!!

1.	Medicinal drugs.

[Olivianus]

“So which parts do you believe and which parts dont you believe. ”

>>>Primarily I just don’t think Science is true, or is even in the category of demonstration. I am an Operationalist which means I believe that terms that scientists use in Laboratories reflect operations in a laboratory. They do not reflect the true nature of reality. My scriptural support for the  rejection of science: Ecc 8:17 and I saw every work of God, I concluded that man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, "I know," he cannot discover.

What if you created the entire universe and one of your creatures had the audacity to say that you didn’t exist?

Second, induction is a logical fallacy. Bertrand Russell said,
 
“All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: 'If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.' If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.” The Scientific Outlook By Bertrand Russell (Publisher: Routledge; New edition (July 18, 2001)

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_scientific_outlook.html?id=eLe1Bav9NBcC


Third,  Zeno’s Paradox.

Fourth, Mary Louise Gills’ refutation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics which basically makes all attempts at empirical individuation impossible.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4__8kPBMnMMC&dq=unity+identity+and+explanation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WRpPT4TUF8P6ggeBzbG-DQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA

Fifth, the earth is not in uniform motion to qualify it for the laws of modern physics.

Sixth, the splitting of the atom which pretty much refuted the entire scientific theory that usurped Christianity.

Seventh, Alfred Russell Wallace’s rejection of natural selection after writing the foundational work on the subject and inspiring Darwin to write his.

Eighth, it has yet to cash out into a complete, consistent, human philosophy of reality, epistemology, ethics and politics that has unified and established a free civilization of people.   






 

[One Above All]

Olivianus, you should practice what you preach. Give away everything that you own, including your money (not kidding; everything you own was made with SCIENCE) and go live in the jungle. I'll take your stuff to make certain that you don't fall into temptation again. Good luck.

[sun_king]

If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.

This should keep me going for the rest of the day 

Isn't this what the Bible does? Circular Logic?

Edited: Removed a sentence accidentally put, it was meant for another post.

[Anfauglir]

“So which parts do you believe and which parts dont you believe. ”

>>>Primarily I just don’t think Science is true, or is even in the category of demonstration. I am an Operationalist which means I believe that terms that scientists use in Laboratories reflect operations in a laboratory. They do not reflect the true nature of reality........

No, not good enough.  Be specific.  Look around you, at all the technolgoy that is working in the real world, that came from science.  Actually, perhaps you'd better explain what "science" means to you, because it sounds like you have a very narrow definition that very few others would recognise.

[sun_king]

Unless Ecc 8:17 has deeper meaning, all the the work done by NASA, CERN and all the research labs in the world are pointless. Somebody notify them.

This message reaches the WWGHA via an IEEE 802.11n network which does not exist, the technology was never found no matter how hard the wise men searched. Its a miracle.

[Quesi]

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I know I’m really excited to learn how we can use citations from Bertrand Russell to dismantle the scientific method in order to fully embrace the scriptures.   

[sun_king]

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I know I’m really excited to learn how we can use citations from Bertrand Russell to dismantle the scientific method in order to fully embrace the scriptures.

It will be a typical case of "some parts of what Russell said is true, the rest is gibberish" or something to that effect. From the same book:

"There is, therefore, no better reason to suppose that the world was caused by a Creator than to suppose that it was uncaused ; either equally contradicts the causal laws that we can observe."

"I am, however, quite unable to see why an intelligent Creator should have the purposes which we must attribute to Him if He
has really designed all that happens in the world of organic life. Nor does the progress of scientific investigation afford any evidence that the behaviour of living matter is governed by anything other than laws of physics and chemistry."

[Turbo SS]

I did want to say thank you for responding.  I have posted this question on 3 forums and the other 2 are more active than this one and filled with more cristians.  I couldnt buy an attempt at a refutation from them.  The only other responses I got was someone saying I was attacking religion with my word choices.  They were too aggressive I guess.  And some other guy who immediately jumped to saying evolution is false.  Which I mentioned at the beginning, there are a billion debates on evolution.  Thats not the purpose of this thread.

Anyway, onto the meat of my post.  As others have mentioned please explain how we have any modern technology without science. One example, I can get in my car and drive right now.  Physics, chemistry, engineering coming together are responsible for cars.  Do you not think cars drive? can you prove that?

[Olivianus]

As I have already said. Operation is not demonstration. We can uses science without knowing what we are using. I passed the A+ essential exam, not impressive by any means but I read through Meyers 1200 page COMPTIA book a couple times and I still don't get how an internal data bus works. But I can use it! I use it everyday.  Take milk fever for example. milk fever. This problem was at first cured in cows by an injection of antiseptic into the cow’s udder. Later an injection of distilled water and compressed air alone (which was included in the prior injection) cured the milk fever. These theories later proved false. BUT THEY WORKED. Today, milk fever is treated by a calcium injection. What's the point? Medical theories based on empirical methods thankfully work many times. Unfortunately, they can never be proven true. The probability of these theories being true is answered by Karl Popper: “It can even be shown that all theories, including the best have the same probability, namely zero” (Conjectures and Refutations, p 192). There are infinite possible reasons why these theories work from time to time. Your probability therefore is represented by the fraction one/infinity which equals zero.

[Anfauglir]

......I read through Meyers 1200 page COMPTIA book a couple times and I still don't get how an internal data bus works. But I can use it! I use it everyday.....

See, this is what I don't get.  You don't understand the science behind something you use (hey, welcome to my world!).....so your assumption is what?  That the science behind it is wrong, or right?

The question was, which parts of science do you believe, and which parts do you NOT believe?  I'm again asking you for specific as to the parts you believe, and the parts you don't.  Saying "the bits in the laboratory" doesn't really cut it - where do you believe the internal data bus was designed and developed, for example?

Sorry, but I just don't get where you are coming from, at least in regard to the question underlying this thread?

[sun_king]

It is a classic case of demanding evidence for repeatable scientific phenomena but being entirely convinced about unrepeatable, unsupported "miracles" described in contradictory and ambiguous manner in one book. If Newton's laws of motion is found to be giving repeatable, predictable and consistent results, these folks then claim that Newton's laws may be applicable only on earth, not the universe and hence not true science.

They are perfectly fine with the biblical process of making striped and spotted goats.

[velkyn]

As I have already said. Operation is not demonstration. We can uses science without knowing what we are using. I passed the A+ essential exam, not impressive by any means but I read through Meyers 1200 page COMPTIA book a couple times and I still don't get how an internal data bus works. But I can use it! I use it everyday.  Take milk fever for example. milk fever. This problem was at first cured in cows by an injection of antiseptic into the cow’s udder. Later an injection of distilled water and compressed air alone (which was included in the prior injection) cured the milk fever. These theories later proved false. BUT THEY WORKED. Today, milk fever is treated by a calcium injection. What's the point? Medical theories based on empirical methods thankfully work many times. Unfortunately, they can never be proven true. The probability of these theories being true is answered by Karl Popper: “It can even be shown that all theories, including the best have the same probability, namely zero” (Conjectures and Refutations, p 192). There are infinite possible reasons why these theories work from time to time. Your probability therefore is represented by the fraction one/infinity which equals zero.

Yep, they can be proven true, since if you do "x" it works and if you don't do "x" it doesn't work.  As for your claims about "milk fever", where did you get this information?   I ask since I grew up on a dairy farm and know you haven't a clue what you are talking about.  I'll let wiki explain why inflating the udder helps

Treatment generally involves calcium injection by intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous routes. Before calcium injection was employed, treatment comprised inflation of the udder using a pneumatic pump. Inflation of the udder worked because the increased pressure created in the udder pushed the calcium in the udder back into the bloodstream of the cow.

  As always, the willful ignorance of theists always bites them in the ass with their lies.

It's so sad when I see a wannabee philosopher have no awareness of anything but philosophy and even that isn’t understood well. 

You are proposing a Dr. Seuss universe, where everything can happen no matter what. Reality doesn’t support your little delusion nor does it support your god.

[kin hell]

You are proposing a Dr. Seuss universe, where everything can happen no matter what. Reality doesn’t support your little delusion nor does it support your god.

Actually I like the inferred god necessary for such a random universe. 

Either a god who is incapable of creating consistent and verifiable rules,
or a god who deliberately chooses not adopt consistent and verifiable rules.

If this is the god that is our "authority" our "rule giver" then neither the incompetent version nor the capricious warrant anything but ridicule or contempt.

[Olivianus]

See, this is what I don't get.  You don't understand the science behind something you use (hey, welcome to my world!).....so your assumption is what?  That the science behind it is wrong, or right?

No, it is unknowable. My definition of knowledge is a justified propositional value containing a variable error of zero. Yours is probably going to much looser which is a source of our disagreement.

The question was, which parts of science do you believe, and which parts do you NOT believe?

1. The principle of the knowability/demonstrability of the physical universe.  The principle of the empirical method in toto.

2. The principle of induction.

3. The knowability/demonstrability of space.

4. The knowability/demonstrability of motion.

5. The knowability/demonstrability of matter.

6. The knowability/demonstrability of universal physical laws. 

7. Even if there were laws, how our planet could even qualify for these seeing our planet is not in uniform motion.

8. The impossibility of even using instruments to know/demonstrate these principles:

i. Mathematics cannot be used by scientists  to analyze what they believe to be “data”.  Statistics and probability are the primary types of mathematics that are used yet mathematics cannot be grasped by the empirical method. 

  In empirical mathematics when one uses a numeral such as 1 or 2 do these units and their relationship to others reflect laws of nature and reality?  Can these be units of anything? Are the units distinguished from each other as water is distinguished from acid? It appears not. Clark says, “Two pints of water and three pints of sulfuric acid do not make five pints.”[Clark, Thales to Dewey, 299] Clark says again,
 
“Teachers of small children may think that ‘two and two are four’ is taught by playing with marbles.  Does not the teacher show the pupil how two marbles and two marbles make four marbles?  Roll them together into a corner and see that there are four marbles.  Then, after this is done with different colored marbles, and different sized marbles, and with pencils and erasers, the child generalizes or abstracts from his experience that truth that two and two are four.  However, this explanation of the learning process seems to be unsatisfactory.  In the first place, the child would have to recognize one marble before he could count two of them.  Where did the concept of a unit come from?  From the marble also?  But would not the pupil have to have the concept of a unit before he recognized a marble as one?  If he did not know one he could not count one. He has to know the numbers in order to count.  And in the second place, this consideration holds for four as well as for one.  He must know four before he can count four marbles. Perhaps this can more clearly be seen if large numbers are used.  Let the teacher try to teach the young child that 356 marbles and 791 marbles are 1147 marbles.  Everyone has heard children say their numbers: one, two, three. four, seven, sixteen, five, twenty-one, sintillion. The young child who so counts cannot learn the example by counting marbles because he cannot count numbers.  He can count marbles only after he can count numbers.  And since numbers are not marbles or anything else sensory, it follows that arithmetic is not abstracted from experience. So much for mathematics.”[Gordon H. Clark, Religion, A Christian View of Men And Things (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1952, 1980, Fourth edition 2005), 214-215]
 
                Einstein said: "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."  Why then do scientists think they can develop laws of nature with mathematics?

ii. The Heraclitean flux refuted the idea of fixed points. Fixed points are required to use these instruments: The classic example is the pendulum.

Clark says, “If, however, the weight of the bob is unevenly displaced around its center, the law will not hold. The law assumes that the bob is homogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point. No such bob exists, and hence the law is not an accurate description of any tangible pendulum. Second, the law assumes that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string. There is no such string, so that the scientific law does not describe any real pendulum. And third, the law could be true only if the pendulum swung on an axis without friction. There is no such axis. It follows, therefore, that no visible pendulum accords with the mathematical formula and that the formula is not a description of any existing pendulum.”[Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second  edition 1987, 57]

9. The idea that science, even if it forces the preceding 8 points through,  can give us objects of knowledge (This requires something changeless through qualitative change). The original attempt was Democritus' atomism, yet as we have already seen, this theory was refuted by the splitting of the atom.

I'm again asking you for specific as to the parts you believe, and the parts you don't.  Saying "the bits in the laboratory" doesn't really cut it - where do you believe the internal data bus was designed and developed, for example?

I have catered to you in detail above.

Sorry, but I just don't get where you are coming from, at least in regard to the question underlying this thread?

You challenged my position and I respect you for doing that without sounding like a bitter belligerent idiot.

[Olivianus]

Vel,

Yep, they can be proven true, since if you do "x" it works and if you don't do "x" it doesn't work.

Re-asserting your position doesn't answer my argument or show a distinction between operation and demonstration.

As for your claims about "milk fever", where did you get this information?

Dr. Clark's book on the philo of science   

I ask since I grew up on a dairy farm and know you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

That's for you to prove.

I'll let wiki explain why inflating the udder helps

Treatment generally involves calcium injection by intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous routes. Before calcium injection was employed, treatment comprised inflation of the udder using a pneumatic pump. Inflation of the udder worked because the increased pressure created in the udder pushed the calcium in the udder back into the bloodstream of the cow.
  As always, the willful ignorance of theists always bites them in the ass with their lies.

Nowhere in this quote do we find a denial that injections of antiseptic into the cow’s udder or an injection of distilled water were ever used.

It's so sad when I see a wannabee philosopher have no awareness of anything but philosophy and even that isn’t understood well. 

Its frustrating for me to continually be in front of atheists who are the most insolent bitter human beings I have ever met. Are you able to write a single post here without rude, insulting speech while making a single valid argument? 

"You are proposing a Dr. Seuss universe, where everything can happen no matter what."

 I will leave my opponent with this quote by Einstein:
 
"The conversation drifted back and forth from profundities about the nature of God, the universe, and man to questions of a lighter and more vivacious nature...Suddenly [Einstein] lifted his head, looked upward at the clear skies, and said: 'We know nothing about it all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren'....'Do you think,' I asked, 'that we shall ever probe the secret?'...'Possibly,' he said with a movement of his shoulders, 'we shall know a little more than we do now. But the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never" (Einstein: The Life and Times, Avon Books, 1971, pg 504, by Ronald W. Clark) The context is a conversation between Einstein and Dr. Chaim Tschernowitz.


Don't expect me to reply to another one of your posts Vel.

[Olivianus]

Kin Hell,

You are proposing a Dr. Seuss universe, where everything can happen no matter what. Reality doesn’t support your little delusion nor does it support your god.

Actually I like the inferred god necessary for such a random universe. 

Either a god who is incapable of creating consistent and verifiable rules,
or a god who deliberately chooses not adopt consistent and verifiable rules.

If this is the god that is our "authority" our "rule giver" then neither the incompetent version nor the capricious warrant anything but ridicule or contempt.

Who said the rules have to be physical? That is your assumption. God has inspired a rather lengthy book with many rules in it.

[kin hell]

Kin Hell,

You are proposing a Dr. Seuss universe, where everything can happen no matter what. Reality doesn’t support your little delusion nor does it support your god.

Actually I like the inferred god necessary for such a random universe. 

Either a god who is incapable of creating consistent and verifiable rules,
or a god who deliberately chooses not adopt consistent and verifiable rules.

If this is the god that is our "authority" our "rule giver" then neither the incompetent version nor the capricious warrant anything but ridicule or contempt.

Who said the rules have to be physical? That is your assumption. God has inspired a rather lengthy book with many rules in it.

You are absolutely correct Oli

The bible couldn't be a better example of both the "gods" I inferred via velky from your earlier commentary.

Either we have a god who is incapable of inspiring his rule book to be consistent or we have a god who deliberately chooses not to adopt a consistent rule book.
Here is a god whose "morality" is apparently completely malleable and unfixed.
Here is a god whose "authority" is so arbitrary and changeable as to be meaningless

I offer this below not expecting any individual rebuttal, but as a plethora of examples as to the unverifiable and hilarious randomness of your gods inspiration.

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

MORAL PRECEPTS
    24. Robbery commanded
          Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36
         Robbery forbidden
          Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15
     25. Lying approved and sanctioned
          Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22
         Lying forbidden
          Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8
     26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned
          2 Kings 14:7,3
         Hatred to the Edomite forbidden
          Deut 23:7
     27. Killing commanded
          Ex 32:27
         Killing forbidden
          Ex 20:13
     28. The blood-shedder must die
          Gen 9:5,6
         The blood-shedder must not die
          Gen 4:15
     29. The making of images forbidden
           Ex 20:4
         The making of images commanded
          Ex 25:18,20
     30. Slavery and oppression ordained
          Gen 9:25/ Lev 25:45,46/ Joel 3:8
         Slavery and oppression forbidden
          Is 58:6/ Ex 22:21/ Ex 21:16/ Matt 23:10
     31. Improvidence enjoyed
          Matt 6:28,31,34/ Luke 6:30,35/ Luke 12:3
         Improvidence condemned
          1 Tim 5:8/ Prov 13:22
     32. Anger approved
          Eph 4:26
         Anger disapproved
          Eccl 7:9/ Prov 22:24/ James 1:20
     33. Good works to be seen of men
          Matt 5:16
         Good works not to be seen of men
          Matt 6:1
     34. Judging of others forbidden
          Matt 7:1,2
         Judging of others approved
          1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12
      35. Christ taught non-resistance
          Matt 5:39/ Matt 26:52
         Christ taught and practiced physical resistance
          Luke 22:36/ John 2:15
     36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed
          Luke 12:4
         Christ himself avoided the Jews for fear of being killed
          John 7:1
     37. Public prayer sanctioned
          1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3
         Public prayer disapproved
          Matt 6:5,6
     38. Importunity in prayer commended
          Luke 18:5,7
         Importunity in prayer condemned
          Matt 6:7,8
     39. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned
          Judg 13:5/ Num 6:5
         The wearing of long hair by men condemned
          1 Cor 11:14
     40. Circumcision instituted
          Gen 17:10
         Circumcision condemned
          Gal 5:2
     41. The Sabbath instituted
          Ex 20:8
         The Sabbath repudiated
          Is 1:13/ Rom 14:5/ Col 2:16
     42. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day
          Ex 20:11
         The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites     
         out of Egypt
          Deut 5:15
     43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death
          Ex 31:15/ Num 15:32,36
         Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in 
         the same
          John 5:16/ Matt 12:1-3,5
     44. Baptism commanded
          Matt 28:19
         Baptism not commanded
          1 Cor 1:17,14
     45. Every kind of animal allowed for food.
          Gen 9:3/ 1 Cor 10:25/ Rom 14:14
         Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food.
          Deut 14:7,8
      46. Taking of oaths sanctioned
          Num 30:2/ Gen 21:23-24,31/ Gen 31:53/ Heb 6:13
         Taking of oaths forbidden
          Matt 5:34
     47. Marriage approved
          Gen 2:18/ Gen 1:28/ Matt 19:5/ Heb 13:4
         Marriage disapproved
          1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8
     48. Freedom of divorce permitted
          Deut 24:1/ Deut 21:10,11,14
         Divorce restricted
          Matt 5:32
     49. Adultery forbidden
          Ex 20:14/ Heb 13:4
         Adultery allowed
          Num 31:18/ Hos 1:2; 2:1-3
     50. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced
          Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17
         Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union
          Gen 20:11,12/ Gen 17:16
     51. A man may marry his brother's widow
          Deut 25:5
         A man may not marry his brother's widow
          Lev 20:21
     52. Hatred to kindred enjoined
          Luke 14:26
         Hatred to kindred condemned
          Eph 6:2/ Eph 5:25,29
     53. Intoxicating beverages recommended
          Prov 31:6,7/ 1 Tim 5:23/ Ps 104:15
         Intoxicating beverages discountenanced
          Prov 20:1/ Prov 23:31,32
     54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers   
         and punish evil doers only
          Rom 13:1-3,6
         It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the   
         good and receive unto themselves damnation therefor
          Ex 1:17,20/ Dan 3:16,18/ Dan 6:9,7,10/ Acts 4:26,27/
           Mark 12:38,39,40/ Luke 23:11,24,33,35
     55. Women's rights denied
          Gen 3:16/ 1 Tim 2:12/ 1 Cor 14:34/ 1 Pet 3:6
         Women's rights affirmed
          Judg 4:4,14,15/ Judg 5:7/ Acts 2:18/ Acts 21:9
     56. Obedience to masters enjoined
          Col 3:22,23/ 1 Pet 2:18
         Obedience due to God only
          Matt 4:10/ 1 Cor 7:23/ Matt 23:10
     57. There is an unpardonable sin
          Mark 3:29
         There is not unpardonable sin
          Acts 13:39
 

[Olivianus]

MORAL PRECEPTS
    24. Robbery commanded
          Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36
         Robbery forbidden
          Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15
     25. Lying approved and sanctioned
          Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22
         Lying forbidden
          Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8
     26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned
          2 Kings 14:7,3
         Hatred to the Edomite forbidden
          Deut 23:7
     27. Killing commanded
          Ex 32:27
         Killing forbidden
          Ex 20:13
     28. The blood-shedder must die
          Gen 9:5,6
         The blood-shedder must not die
          Gen 4:15
     29. The making of images forbidden
           Ex 20:4
         The making of images commanded
          Ex 25:18,20
     30. Slavery and oppression ordained
          Gen 9:25/ Lev 25:45,46/ Joel 3:8
         Slavery and oppression forbidden
          Is 58:6/ Ex 22:21/ Ex 21:16/ Matt 23:10
     31. Improvidence enjoyed
          Matt 6:28,31,34/ Luke 6:30,35/ Luke 12:3
         Improvidence condemned
          1 Tim 5:8/ Prov 13:22
     32. Anger approved
          Eph 4:26
         Anger disapproved
          Eccl 7:9/ Prov 22:24/ James 1:20
     33. Good works to be seen of men
          Matt 5:16
         Good works not to be seen of men
          Matt 6:1
     34. Judging of others forbidden
          Matt 7:1,2
         Judging of others approved
          1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12
      35. Christ taught non-resistance
          Matt 5:39/ Matt 26:52
         Christ taught and practiced physical resistance
          Luke 22:36/ John 2:15
     36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed
          Luke 12:4
         Christ himself avoided the Jews for fear of being killed
          John 7:1
     37. Public prayer sanctioned
          1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3
         Public prayer disapproved
          Matt 6:5,6
     38. Importunity in prayer commended
          Luke 18:5,7
         Importunity in prayer condemned
          Matt 6:7,8
     39. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned
          Judg 13:5/ Num 6:5
         The wearing of long hair by men condemned
          1 Cor 11:14
     40. Circumcision instituted
          Gen 17:10
         Circumcision condemned
          Gal 5:2
     41. The Sabbath instituted
          Ex 20:8
         The Sabbath repudiated
          Is 1:13/ Rom 14:5/ Col 2:16
     42. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day
          Ex 20:11
         The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites     
         out of Egypt
          Deut 5:15
     43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death
          Ex 31:15/ Num 15:32,36
         Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in 
         the same
          John 5:16/ Matt 12:1-3,5
     44. Baptism commanded
          Matt 28:19
         Baptism not commanded
          1 Cor 1:17,14
     45. Every kind of animal allowed for food.
          Gen 9:3/ 1 Cor 10:25/ Rom 14:14
         Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food.
          Deut 14:7,8
      46. Taking of oaths sanctioned
          Num 30:2/ Gen 21:23-24,31/ Gen 31:53/ Heb 6:13
         Taking of oaths forbidden
          Matt 5:34
     47. Marriage approved
          Gen 2:18/ Gen 1:28/ Matt 19:5/ Heb 13:4
         Marriage disapproved
          1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8
     48. Freedom of divorce permitted
          Deut 24:1/ Deut 21:10,11,14
         Divorce restricted
          Matt 5:32
     49. Adultery forbidden
          Ex 20:14/ Heb 13:4
         Adultery allowed
          Num 31:18/ Hos 1:2; 2:1-3
     50. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced
          Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17
         Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union
          Gen 20:11,12/ Gen 17:16
     51. A man may marry his brother's widow
          Deut 25:5
         A man may not marry his brother's widow
          Lev 20:21
     52. Hatred to kindred enjoined
          Luke 14:26
         Hatred to kindred condemned
          Eph 6:2/ Eph 5:25,29
     53. Intoxicating beverages recommended
          Prov 31:6,7/ 1 Tim 5:23/ Ps 104:15
         Intoxicating beverages discountenanced
          Prov 20:1/ Prov 23:31,32
     54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers   
         and punish evil doers only
          Rom 13:1-3,6
         It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the   
         good and receive unto themselves damnation therefor
          Ex 1:17,20/ Dan 3:16,18/ Dan 6:9,7,10/ Acts 4:26,27/
           Mark 12:38,39,40/ Luke 23:11,24,33,35
     55. Women's rights denied
          Gen 3:16/ 1 Tim 2:12/ 1 Cor 14:34/ 1 Pet 3:6
         Women's rights affirmed
          Judg 4:4,14,15/ Judg 5:7/ Acts 2:18/ Acts 21:9
     56. Obedience to masters enjoined
          Col 3:22,23/ 1 Pet 2:18
         Obedience due to God only
          Matt 4:10/ 1 Cor 7:23/ Matt 23:10
     57. There is an unpardonable sin
          Mark 3:29
         There is not unpardonable sin
          Acts 13:39
 

[/quote]

I have spent too many hours of my life reading through the scripture twisting of atheists to go through this whole list, but the first one is good enough to demonstrate your dishonesty.

Exo 3: 21 I will grant this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians; and it shall be that when you go, you will not go empty-handed. 22 But every woman shall ask of her neighbor and the woman who lives in her house, articles of silver and articles of gold, and clothing; and you will put them on your sons and daughters. Thus you will plunder the Egyptians.”

This is not robbery. Merriam Websters defines robbery: "the act or practice of robbing; specifically : larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat. "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbery

Second, you are ignoring the previous centuries of forced slavery.