It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

proof against evolution

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
It requires some knowledge of ancient history, critical thinking skills and diligent study to read the Bible. So your ignorance stems from the fact you don't really understand the Bible or why it was written and who it was written too. ~ BigWhammy

I'm fairly sure you don't either. But perhaps you could enlighten us. Please, browse this rather small list of inconsistencies and errors in your infallible book, compare them to the "original texts" and explain these falsehoods, inconsistencies, etc. It shouldn't take long for someone of your intellect, there's only fifteen chapters worth.

God vs. The Bible

Also, I would really love and explanation as to how Genesis can reconcile the story of woman's creation with what we know of genetics. As I understand it, God created Adam and then Eve secondary from one of his ribs. However, nature refutes this view since all humans are born inherently female. They only become male later in development. See, the way it's determined what your sex is your last chromosome pair. Women have X/X, Men have X/Y. The Y chromosome is basically a list of alterations needed to turn the organism into a male.

This is also, btw, why men have nipples.

It was not intended to be a science text for malcontent twentieth century skeptics. ~ BigWhammy

Truth is truth, even if you say it in parable or in different words. Your argument might have some merit if it was apparent that the writers of the bible were speaking of real phenomena dumbed down to simpler minds, but what it describes is so far beyond what we know to be true that there's really no way it can be reconciled.

Malcontent? Is that what you call people who believe that positive claims be backed up with positive proof?

RAWR RAWR I HAET ATHEIST! RAGE! ~ Conspiriology

Yawn.

If you hate Atheists so much, then why don't you actually DO something to prove them wrong? I have never once seen you post a scrap of positive proof of creation or the existence of a god. You don't even post evidence. All you do is sit back and try to poke holes in a theory you know really nothing about, then claim it lies simply because you perceive anyone who supports it to be a "dirty godless atheist".

This is part of my problem with Creationists in general, especially those who claim that there's some grand conspiracy against religion in the biological field of study. They claim to have the truth on their side, yet cannot provide it. Many erroneously claim that there are only TWO possible solutions, and if one is false then the other MUST be true. Which is, I suspect, just why it is that they so vehemently attack Evolution. Because they think that if they can topple Evolution, people will have no choice but to accept creationism.

There is far (FAR) more evidence in favor of the Aquatic Ape Theory (which I happen to subscribe to) - yet it has not been proven demonstrably true over the Savannah Theory. There's a lot of good circumstantial evidence, but nothing really concrete. So it's not widely accepted in the academic arena. Yet you don't hear AAT supporters crying "Conspiracy!" "Water Haters!" etc the way you hear Creationists do.

Honestly Con ... Do you read scientific publications? If you do, do you read the articles on astrophysics? ~ Horza

No. He said he was a scientist at a cosmetics company, so he knows how full of crap scientists are and doesn't trust them. Dirty Atheist scum.




posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic

I'm fairly sure you don't either. But perhaps you could enlighten us. Please, browse this rather small list of inconsistencies and errors in your infallible book, compare them to the "original texts" and explain these falsehoods, inconsistencies, etc. It shouldn't take long for someone of your intellect, there's only fifteen chapters worth.


God vs. The Bible

Hey lash,, Ill look em over. Don't know if I can do all of em but Ill do what I can.



Also, I would really love and explanation as to how Genesis can reconcile the story of woman's creation with what we know of genetics. As I understand it, God created Adam and then Eve secondary from one of his ribs. However, nature refutes this view since all humans are born inherently female.

in the womb just a drop of testosterone and they begin gender development as a male. But are you saying while in the womb we are all born female as the default bio template? Then the fallopian tubes the vagina all that stuff just gets reconfigured into a penis and testicles all that? Is that what you think?



They only become male later in development. See, the way it's determined what your sex is your last chromosome pair. Women have X/X, Men have X/Y. The Y chromosome is basically a list of alterations needed to turn the organism into a male.

This is also, btw, why men have nipples.


Adam didn't have nipples his offspring did



If you hate Atheists so much, then why don't you actually DO something to prove them wrong?


You don't prove atheist's wrong, are you kidding me lol and I don't hate them. They ain't that important.


I have never once seen you post a scrap of positive proof of creation or the existence of a god.


I don't prove God, it isn't my responsibility to explain what you wouldn't understand. I see God, You Don't I hear God, You Don't

Ok



You don't even post evidence. All you do is sit back and try to poke holes in a theory you know really nothing about, then claim it lies simply because you perceive anyone who supports it to be a "dirty godless atheist".


The part about knowing nothing about it, I take exception to.
I read about it all the time, daily in fact two to three hours a day and anything I can get my hands on. The rest of that you are pretty much dead on about, not all are atheists, but other than that,,

Yep thats what I do.



This is part of my problem with Creationists in general, especially those who claim that there's some grand conspiracy against religion in the biological field of study. They claim to have the truth on their side, yet cannot provide it.


Gee you took the words right out of my mouth about evolutionists



Many erroneously claim that there are only TWO possible solutions, and if one is false then the other MUST be true. Which is, I suspect, just why it is that they so vehemently attack Evolution. Because they think that if they can topple Evolution, people will have no choice but to accept creationism.


I suppose that's true for some but so what.



There is far (FAR) more evidence in favor of the Aquatic Ape Theory (which I happen to subscribe to) - yet it has not been proven demonstrably true over the Savannah Theory. There's a lot of good circumstantial evidence, but nothing really concrete. So it's not widely accepted in the academic arena. Yet you don't hear AAT supporters crying "Conspiracy!" "Water Haters!" etc the way you hear Creationists do.


yeah,, so what

Honestly Con ... Do you read scientific publications? If you do, do you read the articles on astrophysics? ~ Horza



No. He said he was a scientist at a cosmetics company, so he knows how full of crap scientists are and doesn't trust them. Dirty Atheist scum.


No that isn't what I said you are being dishonest but somehow,, that doesn't surprise me.

Just like I never said this:

"RAWR RAWR I HAET ATHEIST! RAGE! ~ Conspiriology "

Tsk tsk tsk lash

- Con










[edit on 6-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Micro evolution is real, but macro evolution is not. Macro evolution is what Darwin believes, it's too complication to have macro evolution, instead it's manipulation the DNA for instance cloning.

Humans were created through DNA manipulation, that's why there is not a single human transition fossil can found because there isn't, when we can found thousands of other Dinosaur fossils.

We cheated evolution, from someone who cross us from homo erectus w/ another being.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 





The writers of the bible believed the world was a flat circle covered by a dome. This is evident by the wording, especially the reference to a "tent". They also believed that the stars were affixed to this dome and could be shaken lose. They didn't have a concept of outer space, and assumed that above the atmosphere was water.


So what is your point? They were primitive Hebrews. The prophets had visions and were able to accurately conceive of the sky as a dome shape even though they had no understanding of what they saw in the vision in a modern scientific sense.

"circle of the earth" how did they know it was round - Hmmmm?

If you were an ancient and saw a view from space you would describe a circle. Plus the ancient Hebrew language had no word for sphere.

You are proving my point. Thanks.





They believed that the Earth was stationary and could not be moved from it's foundations. This is a direct contrast to what we know about celestial mechanics. The Earth is in an elliptical orbit and not only moves around the sun, but revolves around the galactic core as well as moves in relation to other galaxies. The best known estimates give our average speed at around 2,160,000 km/hr. Yes, you're right now traveling at faster than the speed of sound.


Can you move the earth? Can you shake it? NO Can you percieve its rotation NO. Was that verse written to be a celestial mechanics lesson. NO.

Again do you even have a point? Or only repeated strawmmen fallacies? Nobody has ever claimed the ancient Hebrews understood everything we do today. The Bible wasn't meant as a science textbook for 21st century mal contents.



Unfortunately the Bible never had an original text. It was told as oral tradition long before it was ever written down.


Truly stunning ignorance displayed there. Anything that is written has an original text. Duh! Just because they got lost doesn't negate the fact there was a first one for each book.



The oldest known religious texts from the judeo-christian beliefs are the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written a hundred years after Christ. They are, unfortunately, incomplete, degraded, and differ greatly from currently practiced religion.


You are so woefully ignorant. Some of Dead Sea scrolls were written 2nd century BC minimum. 100s of years before Jesus and they accurately prophecy him as well. Get a clue please.



The Great Isaiah scroll was found in the Dead Sea Caves in 1947 and is known as the Great Isaiah Scroll. It is dated at about 100 BCE and is the oldest copy of Isaiah known to exist.
www.ancient-hebrew.org...


I've researched the dead Sea scrolls they prove the amazing consistency of the OT. The Great Isaiah Scroll is almost identical to the text we have today. It has been dated 100 BC and it is many hand made copies later. Yet the differences to what we use today, amount to punctuation and a few letters.



"Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The three remaining letters comprise the word LIGHT, which is added in verse 11 and which does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the Septuagint (LXX). Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission - and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage." (Norman Geisler & William Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible", Moody Press, Page 263).




So you've just proven yourself wrong - as even if the original texts were infallible - they are lost to us, and I'm pretty sure YOU don't follow the religion they outline.


Nothing you said discredits the Bible. You just proved your own incredible ignorance of the Bible. You did an amazing job.



[edit on 7/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Ya know,, I just got finished looking at this website for this moronic book lash wanted me to read and I thought this would be different but nope it is the same asinine discontextual, mis interpreted, under evaluated, mis understood, pathetically translated, quote mined, cherry picked, deliberately mis represented garbage you would expect from anyone with a trailor trash scholarship who is unskilled at knowing the scipture and thinks he is an expert but is unskilled and unaware of it.

You expect me to answer that crap? You don't deserve answers when the ONLY reason for you or anyone else to have wanted to read that trash,,,

is because your only interest is in

spreading BS!



- Con







[edit on 6-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 




So you are saying we are all born female as the default bio template?

Yes, we are, though I suppose "born" isn't the right word and I'm sorry. Rather, it is the basic genetic template to be conceived female. This is evident by the XX or XY pairing. You can have two XX chromosomes, but not two YY chromosomes. Females do not carry the Y chromosome at all, only the males. The sex of the baby is determined by the father, not the mother. It is not possible (to my knowledge) to have a YY combination. (XX combination makes females) However, it is possible to have multiple Y chromosomes (XYY) or only a single X chromosome with no pair (X0) - however both of these have two traits in common. They both contain the X Chromosome - and they both lead to genetic disorders (such as Down Syndrome).

So yes, we are inherently female. No, the uterus and the fallopian tubes do not collapse. During fetal development the sex organs begin to manifest as gonads, and if (in the case of males) a Y chromosome is present the gonads will develop into testes. If not, they develop into ovaries. Yet even if you consider this a neutral stage, it still does not reconcile with the creation story of man coming first due to the XX/XY pairing problem.

in the womb just a drop of testosterone and they begin gender development as a male.

Do you have a study to back that up? Testosterone may encourage some male-like features (it's developed on it's own in the testes if the child is male) however it won't make the child male. They will still be female. A transsexual MtoF, for example, can take estrogen to gain a more feminine look, but it will not make them female. Similarly, testosterone in a FtoM transsexual can develop more male oriented features - but it will not make them male.

It will make them sterile, however. It will not change their glands. Estrogen/Testosterone treatments must be maintained indefinately in the form of taking hormone treatments or else their bodies will revert back. A MtoF Transexual can slow this process by removing the testes, but it will not stop the reversion.

Adam didn't have nipples his offspring did

Funny, every single picture I've ever seen depicting Adam in bibles, churches, or popular culture all portray him with nipples. The bible itself makes no mention whether he did or not. However, I have seen some depictions with him without a navel. So at least some basic thought to physiology was in mind on a few of those depictions.

You don't prove atheist's wrong, are you kidding me lol and I don't hate them. They ain't that important.

Why do you bring them up so much then? And if not for the "evil atheists", just what movement is propagating this vast conspiracy against creationism and god that makes you think biologists research is suspect?

I don't prove God, it isn't my responsibility to explain what you wouldn't understand.

It IS when you're making a positive claim about such a being in a public forum. Or when such a being is a foundation to your contrary views on the discoveries of science, and you express those views in a public forum. It'd be one thing if you simply wished to state your beliefs, but you actively pursue debate with others by attacking their positions, which means you have to back your own up. Otherwise, you're not engaging in active discourse, you're trolling.

I see God, You Don't I hear God, You Don't

On the contrary. I see and hear god every day, through his works at least. I don't deny god. Rather, I deny the supposed "revealed word of god" written by men of all religions denominations. Including the Judeo-Christian-Islamic scriptures.

I have repeatedly stated to you, and in other threads, that I am a deist. However, you continually misconstrue this and can't seem to grasp the concept of what a deist is.

Deism

I read about it all the time, daily in fact two to three hours a day and anything I can get my hands on.

Then I suggest you read more, since you apparently don't have a good grasp on the subject matter.

yeah,, so what (in regards to the AAT)

The point is that there are many fields of thought in science, many of which aren't supported by the scientific consensus, despite having much more evidence in their favor than Creationism. So why do Creationists feel the need to fast track an unearned political route to a field of science they cannot support or validate. No other theory gets this treatment. So until they can put up, I fell they should shut up. If they want it to be accepted, do what everyone else does and fight it out in the academic arena with evidence and reason. If they're defeated, then go back and gather more evidence. Do that until you can CONVINCE academia that creationism has merit. If they cannot find convincing evidence, well then, take a hint.

No that isn't what I said you are being dishonest but somehow,, that doesn't surprise me.

Just like I never said this:

"RAWR RAWR I HAET ATHEIST! RAGE! ~ Conspiriology


Apparently satire is lost on you as well.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Lasheic]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by amfirst
Micro evolution is real, but macro evolution is not. Macro evolution is what Darwin believes, it's too complication to have macro evolution, instead it's manipulation the DNA for instance cloning.

Humans were created through DNA manipulation, that's why there is not a single human transition fossil can found because there isn't, when we can found thousands of other Dinosaur fossils.

We cheated evolution, from someone who cross us from homo erectus w/ another being.


I would like to see any proof that ties Charles Darwin to Macro-Evolutionary theory. Macro evolution was termed in 1929, The Origin of Species was written much earlier in 1859! He did question the larger picture or Macro evolution but specified They were only theories. People have furthered his work, 1930-1950.. was a period in time referred to as the neo-darwin movement in science, but this was not him directly. Darwin was an observer of nature, classification expert, but not an Astrophysist!!



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 

Did you just get through watching Jurassic Park? If not, that's wierd for a minute there I thought this was a Disney Movie!??



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic

Do you have a study to back that up? Testosterone may encourage some male-like features (it's developed on it's own in the testes if the child is male) however it won't make the child male. They will still be female. A transsexual MtoF, for example, can take estrogen to gain a more feminine look, but it will not make them female. Similarly, testosterone in a FtoM transsexual can develop more male oriented features - but it will not make them male.


yeah check out klinefelters syndrome I have posted to this argument before but as for this being born female,, I don't think you are correct lash I think they are neutral initially after fertilization and genitalia and other anatomical features are homologous




Funny, every single picture I've ever seen depicting Adam in bibles, churches, or popular culture all portray him with nipples. The bible itself makes no mention whether he did or not. However, I have seen some depictions with him without a navel. So at least some basic thought to physiology was in mind on a few of those depictions.


well wouldn't it be common sense he didn't?





Why do you bring them up so much then? And if not for the "evil atheists", just what movement is propagating this vast conspiracy against creationism and god that makes you think biologists research is suspect?


Biology I don't have a problem with I do evolutionists, NOTE: *Biology the science but not the scientist and Evolutionist the scientists.

Other than that it would be the long time Ive spent in these kind of threads seeing what I have seen attending there meetings, reading there books of hatred and bigotry.



It IS when you're making a positive claim about such a being in a public forum. Or when such a being is a foundation to your contrary views on the discoveries of science, and you express those views in a public forum. It'd be one thing if you simply wished to state your beliefs, but you actively pursue debate with others by attacking their positions, which means you have to back your own up.


really lash? YOU are typical of the person I don't feel I owe a damn thing too when you send me to read a book like that one you linked.

The fact is, I know when someone doesn't want to believe it and don't want to waste time on them besides that, the bible is explicit about who to share it with, when, and how. I have not seen any of the signs of a genuine heart in these threads yearning for the truth, not once.



Otherwise, you're not engaging in active discourse, you're trolling.


Call the troll police then lash, I don't troll and the only time I get firm with people is when they dis respect me by mocking


On the contrary. I see and hear god every day, through his works at least. I don't deny god. Rather, I deny the supposed "revealed word of god" written by men of all religions denominations. Including the Judeo-Christian-Islamic scriptures.




I have repeatedly stated to you, and in other threads, that I am a deist. However, you continually misconstrue this and can't seem to grasp the concept of what a deist is.

Deism

I read about it all the time, daily in fact two to three hours a day and anything I can get my hands on.

Then I suggest you read more, since you apparently don't have a good grasp on the subject matter.


I know what a deist is lash and I'm just not impressed. It simply doesn't compare to Christianity, it ain't close.


The point is that there are many fields of thought in science, many of which aren't supported by the scientific consensus, despite having much more evidence in their favor than Creationism. So why do Creationists feel the need to fast track an unearned political route to a field of science they cannot support or validate. No other theory gets this treatment. So until they can put up, I fell they should shut up.


this is one oif the biggest reasons
www.uncommondescent.com...

there are many more but we aren't in science NOT because YOU or anyone else has the right to say what is science and what is not. The scientific method is a myth but for the most part it is the separation of church and state that keeps us out but that is about to change.

Not for us but it will keep atheisms evolution out soon too. They keep looking more like religious zealots everyday.



If they want it to be accepted, do what everyone else does and fight it out in the academic arena with evidence and reason. If they're defeated, then go back and gather more evidence. Do that until you can CONVINCE academia that creationism has merit. If they cannot find convincing evidence, well then, take a hint.


Creationists kick there butts lash even lennox shuts them down. They already know no evidence is accepted by creationists or ID'ers and the U.S Senate has already found this to be true. Not because it doesn't have merit but because it has religious implications.

"RAWR RAWR I HAET ATHEIST! RAGE! ~ Conspiriology


Apparently satire is lost on you as well.


hehe is that what you think that was,,

I didn't, but then again,,,

why would I?

- Con



[edit on 6-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by azblack

Originally posted by amfirst
Micro evolution is real, but macro evolution is not. Macro evolution is what Darwin believes, it's too complication to have macro evolution, instead it's manipulation the DNA for instance cloning.

Humans were created through DNA manipulation, that's why there is not a single human transition fossil can found because there isn't, when we can found thousands of other Dinosaur fossils.

We cheated evolution, from someone who cross us from homo erectus w/ another being.


I would like to see any proof that ties Charles Darwin to Macro-Evolutionary theory. Macro evolution was termed in 1929, The Origin of Species was written much earlier in 1859! He did question the larger picture or Macro evolution but specified They were only theories. People have furthered his work, 1930-1950.. was a period in time referred to as the neo-darwin movement in science, but this was not him directly. Darwin was an observer of nature, classification expert, but not an Astrophysist!!


Read origin of species and see how we evolved according to Darwin you bet yer blind side he was pushing Macro evolution. How you can say he wasn't Ill never know.

Doesn't really matter who thought of it, you keep saying this same drum beat to everyone defending Darwin yet haven't realized the whole reason you keep having to correct everyone is NOT because all of them are wrong but YOU are. The guy had pictures, artists renderings of us coming from amphibians for petes sake AZ,, what do you think THAT WAS SUGGESTING???

Darwin = macro evolution whether he thought of the idea or not HIS book made it popular for many.

- Con




[edit on 6-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


So what is your point? They were primitive Hebrews. The prophets had visions and were able to accurately conceive of the sky as a dome shape even though they had no understanding of what they saw in the vision in a modern scientific sense.

This makes no sense. If they couldn't even comprehend what they were seeing, then why would god even show it to them? What's the point? This stuff is supposed to be going into a book that will supposedly save your soul, and it's relying on the interpretation of people who don't know what the hell is going on to get the message out.

If you were sick with a disease you didn't know about, who would you want to work on it... a trained medical professional, or a high-school drop out who's trying to make sense professional level medical texts?

And if god is omnipotent: firstly, why couldn't he write the book himself and spare us the misinterpretations of bronze age primitive minds - and secondly, why couldn't he fill the guy's head with knowledge of what he was seeing?

Further, the atmosphere isn't "domed", it's spherical. As is the Earth. And you don't have to have the revealed word of god to know that, as the Persians also knew it was "domed". They also knew the land bulged in the middle. You can tell this by standing on any high mountain top. However, they did not know the Earth was spherical. Only "circular". Now they might have seen that curvature and reasoned that (taken to a great expanses) it would eventually curve around forming a sphere. However, this doesn't appear to be the case as they viewed the Earth as very small. The "four corners of the Earth" listed in the bible are quite close in geological contexts. There is no mention of America, Asia, Australia, Antarctica, or any indication that any great landmasses lay outside of the immediate surroundings.

Further, it refers to the firmament as a "tent". As I said, this is in no way accurate as it would have to assume a flat earth rather than round one.

In either case, your original postulation is invalid. The bible is NOT infallible and inerrant as you yourself admited that these people had no concept of what they were truly seeing. So how can they be any sort of a reliable witness?


Can you move the earth?

Actually, the earth does move. It bulges, and it's orbit is perturbed by the Moon.

Can you shake it?

We do all the time. Very small vibrations. We can also detonate nuclear warheads which are VERY capable of "shaking" the Earth. Vibrations from the Tsar Bomba were picked up by seismographs all over the world. And that was even detonated 4km in the air to reduce the force and the destruction on ground level.

NO Can you perceive its rotation NO.

Yes, anyone who can see day and night can perceive it's rotation - either by the Sun or the Stars.

Was that verse written to be a celestial mechanics lesson. NO.

First off, how do you know? What metric do you use to determine parable from fact? Further, how can you say the bible is infallible when it contains such an inaccuracy - even if it's not supposed to be a celestial mechanics lesson.

Truly stunning ignorance displayed there. Anything that is written has an original text. Duh! Just because they got lost doesn't negate the fact there was a first one for each book.

I never stated that the bible didn't have an original text. Only that we do not possess the original texts, and therefore, you cannot make any definitive statements about what is in those original texts.

You are so woefully ignorant. Some of Dead Sea scrolls were written 2nd century BC minimum. 100s of years before Jesus and they accurately prophecy him as well. Get a clue please.

Actually, the oldest known scroll was dated to about 350BCE, although you're right in that it wasn't 200AD. The youngest is around 60AD, however I don't have a clear resource on which scroll is which age. To further complicate matters, the scroll are not all religious. They are a mixture of biblical, apocryphal, and sectarian texts. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls include texts not included in the Bible or Torah. This is because the Dead Sea Scrolls are attributed to the Essenes sect of Judaism. They were one of many, and one of the two mentioned by Josephus. The others being Sadducees and the The Pharisees. The Pharisees being the only sect which survived post 70CE AFAIK.

So yes, I don't doubt that there were similarities between the two. And the preservation of Issiah at least is impressive, but it doesn't alter the fact that the Essenes practiced their religion in a rather different way - and that their texts are now highly degraded. Issiah, for example, had to be pieced together from several separate copies of the book. There is a book not found in the scrolls that is in the Torah (Esther, although it simply may not have been discovered yet), and there is information in the Scrolls not included in the Bible. (such as prophecies of Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Daniel.

I never meant to imply the sort of difference you'd find between, say, Islam and Shintoism. More like the great difference in practice in what you find between Catholicism and Baptists. The way they practice their religions is quite different, even if they're reading (for the most part) similar texts.


Also, I'd like a reference to a prophecy of Jesus. As I recall, some of the scrolls were written even after Jesus's ministry and yet - make absolutely no mention of him, his miracles, or his disciples. Surely this shouldn't be if they KNEW Jesus was prophesied to come and could identify their lord and savior.

I.E. Surely they knew their prophecies better than you, and if they couldn't identify Jesus as the messiah - then the prophecy is far too vague to accurately be attributed to Jesus.

Nothing you said discredits the Bible.

Actually, it's you who has failed to substantiate the validity of the bible. You picked a fallicious point to harp on about, as even if the Dead Sea Scrolls were absolutely identical to the modern Torah verbatim - it still wouldn't prove anything about the Bible except that it hadn't changed.

If I can find a 13th Century copy of Little Red Riding Hood which matches nearly exactly to the modern telling of the tale - does that mean it's tru

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Lasheic]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Ya know,, I just got finished looking at this website for this moronic book lash wanted me to

That's a cop out. If you don't want to refute what it has to say, then don't. But you can't really just play it off like it's "not worth your time". At least be honest about it.

You expect me to answer that crap?

"I can but I won't" is not a valid argument to get your point across.

If you didn't like that book, how about this one?

Age of Reason

yeah check out klinefelters syndrome

I have, and I already mentioned those types of syndromes. There are several different types of disorders attributed to extra or missing sex chromosomes. X0, XXX, XXXX, XYY, XYYY, etc. You won't find a YY syndrome though.

The X chromosome is the female chromosome, and it contains the genetic information needed to make a female. The Y Chromosome is exclusive to males, and doesn't have the full compliment of genes needed to form a human child - even with severe handicaps.

So the question is, if X is the Chromosome which determines the female sex, why is it the vital Chromosome for human development in the event that Adam was created first?

well wouldn't it be common sense he didn't?

If it's common sense, then why is Adam continually portrayed with Nipples and often with a navel?

Biology the science but not the scientist and Evolutionist the scientists.

But biology has shown no demonstrable conflict with Evolution. Neither has Paleontology. Evolution is a twin nested hierarchy.

YOU are typical of the person I don't feel I owe a damn thing too when you send me to read a book like that one you linked.

Refer above.

The fact is, I know when someone doesn't want to believe

Is that revealed truth?

the bible is explicit about who to share it with, when, and how.

And how. Ah, yes, stoning the good word into them. Leviticus 24:13,16 correct? Oh I'm sure there's other ways of dealing with the pesky unbelievers and blasphemers. But that would amount to one of the many contradictions in the bible, too.

I have not seen any of the signs of a genuine heart in these threads yearning for the truth, not once.

Nor will the Muslims, Buddists, Shintoists, Zoroastrians, Jews, Hindus, or other followers of "revealed truth" find an open (gullible) heart in me. Sorry but I simply do not equate following fables that have been proven to be false a means of seeking the truth.

I know what a deist is lash and I'm just not impressed.

Whether you're impressed or not is irrelevant. I only wish you'd have a proper understanding of it, which you have thus far been shown to lack.

It simply doesn't compare to Christianity, it ain't close.

Yes well, like father like son. I know your god enjoys his pissing matches, so it's no surprise his followers do as well. Would quite account for much of the infighting and inter-religious genocides and slaughter I'm sure.

this is one oif the biggest reasons
www.uncommondescent.com...


lol, you do know what Uncommondescent is don't you? It's a misinformation site owned by William Dembski from Discovery Institute. The proponents of the Wedge Strategy. It shouldn't be misconstrued that he is in any way a real scientist, or speaks for scientists. The entirety of peer reviewed literature on Evolution can be surmounted by the papers either for evolution or compatible with evolution by a single issue of a bi-weekly scientific journal. It's literally a pittance And most of what they've put out has been torn to shreds. Dembski himself was caught lying and plagerising about footage for the movie Expelled. The film itself has been torn to shreds and not just by Evolutionists - but by movie critics as well, receiving less than 10% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Guess the movie critic industry must be in on the atheist conspiracy too. This is to say no mention of how much of an idiot the movie's mouthpiece Ben Stein portrays himself as, or how the half the film is a giant call to Godwin's Law (and not even an accurate one).

Claiming Evolution is evil because Hitler believed it is not only wrong, it's underhanded, dishonest, and not scientific in the least.

And THESE are the people you get your information from? These are the people you trust not to tell you lies?



Edit: I thought I should also post this small list of roughly 12,000 signers to the Clergy Letter Petition of church leaders of various denominations to the support of Evolution as a small token example showing that (despite what Dembski and the DI want you to believe), that Science and Religion are compatible. And from a religious perspective as well. I figure if you won't listen to the scientists, maybe you're listen to some of the people who preach your bible.

An open letter concerning Science and Religion petition

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Lasheic]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic

That's a cop out.


No it isn't



If you don't want to refute what it has to say, then don't.


I didn't and without your permission



But you can't really just play it off like it's "not worth your time". At least be honest about it.


Honestly,, It's not worth my time and after reading your last hair splitting post to whammy, you aren't either.




"I can but I won't" is not a valid argument to get your point across.


That's assuming I cared about winning an argument with you lash, but it is obvious with the choices of books you read that actually UNDERSTANDING the Bible, its authors, linguistics, Hebrew language, translation, histrionics, is NOT what you're about.

You're an antagonist who likes reading cheap tricks to confound the average Christian. I have had these debates before proving unequivocally their are no such contradictions when you understand this bronze age book moreover when you actually DO read it that way, you begin to understand things like WHY "Dome" would be the proper word in the context of it being described as the sky above and JUST the sky above.

The fact they knew that at all is testimony to the prophetic nature that could not have been known in that day and time.

it is when you nit pick at absolutely asinine details like why Adam was shown having nipples in artists renderings of the bible that I can tell your mindset is OBVIOUSLY DESPERATE to find flaws in things that common sense can forgive EASILY if you just thought about it.

YOU DON'T, however, and want ME to do it for you. I don't have to read another hatchet job of yours, so save the links to that trailer trash, I've read that bunk before and know why you do.

You have gone as far as criticizing the bible because YOU actually think images and Pictures are part of the original texts!

Good Grief man! THINK!

Did they have a camera back then? NO!

Did they have an artist drawing Adam and eve like a court room sketch artist? NO!

How YOU can fault the Bible for images put there to illustrate the story but are in now way the kind of speciously miss representative depictions where they are made with the explicit purpose of deceiving the reader as so often seen with feathered dino machinations which never existed passed off as fact by ignorant evolutionists.

The Bible on the other hand makes no claims as to Adams general appearance much less any claims he was made anatomically correct! The book assumes the reader (YOU) would have the common sense not only to figure that out for yourself but to know, not EVERYTHING the Bible says the Bible endorses! You would THINK this would be common sense!

You would THINK that someone whose only knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls whose motivation was a google search and destroy mission, would have the common sense to see they DIDN'T COME WITH PICTURES!

It is like that with ALL the Garbage I have found with you Bible contradiction Christian antagonist's and ALL of them are just as embarrassed once common sense is given and they say "oh yeah,, hehe Doh!"

Do you think anyone trying to write a book as a hatchet job has an audience? Sure! They have people like YOU who will buy the book. NOT because of its accurate appreciation for the meticiculously arduous task of translating the texts correctly including the footnotes at bottom (even those who TRY reading the Bible never read) but because it offers positive affirmation for your skepticism. What are some of the difficulties encountered in any translation? Let's start with Hebrew shall we?

The old form of the language didn't use vowels.

Try reading this, "gt n bd"

Does this say "get in bed?" Got no bid? Got on bad? An ancient Hebrew could figure it out but that ignoramus who authored the book you linked me to wouldn't know what that moreover, he wasn't interested in knowing it.

remember, context is not always helpful, To make matters worse, what if a scribe had mistakenly and added an extra consonant ?

gt n brd

That extra "r" could lead to translating the phrase "get on board." Or this:

grt n bld

Now we have a phrase that's totally whacked!

Rather than consider all the facts regarding the huge task this is, YOUR books author is more inclined to use it as an opportunity to disparage the Bible adding insult to injury but NOT to the Bible. The Bible is what it is but conversely to YOU and YOUR understanding of it. If you would like to got toe to toe about Deism Ill be happy to Oblige because I can pretty much guarantee I have read more about YOUR religion with the same commitment to finding the most scholarly data and would never insult you by sending you to a website that trashes the religion.


"Claiming Evolution is evil because Hitler believed it is not only wrong, it's underhanded, dishonest, and not scientific in the least."



Recently, Professor Richard Dawkins compared Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to Adolf Hitler and that wasn't scientific in the least but ya know why I am not whining about it like you are now? Because even an Idiot knows that what Dawkins said was wrong of him but NOT everyone knows Hitler was obsessed with social Darwinism and it is undeniable.
Regardless of that is You are being dishonest the way you are mis representing me AGAIN. Ya see,, C'mere Psssst,, Closer,,ready?? Ok lash,,Make no mistake about it but I think Darwinian evolution is evil whether,,,

HITLER BELIEVED IT OR NOT!

Whether YOU think it isn't very Scientific or NOT.
I don't need to justify it Science, HISTORY has DONE THAT! but he does add factual frosting to how we Christians eat our jingoistic cake!



"biology has shown no demonstrable conflict with Evolution. Neither has Paleontology. Evolution is a twin nested hierarchy. "


I never said it did Lash, read my POST



"And how. Ah, yes, stoning the good word into them. Leviticus 24:13,16 correct? Oh I'm sure there's other ways of dealing with the pesky unbelievers and blasphemers. But that would amount to one of the many contradictions in the bible, too."


Your cynical "Teach me, I dare you" attitude is why I don't Lash, consider it a favor guy, I mean I get it, the Bible isn't for you.

as for your rant about expelled or what you think is so much a lie that goes into what Ben Stein says. I don't care what your silly websites reviews are JUST try getting your information from the horses mouth for a change
www.souder.house.gov...

www.uncommondescent.com...

How you can say something like this next comment and NOT feel like a compete fool?



"I only wish you'd have a proper understanding of it, which you have thus far been shown to lack."






Do YOU actually think YOU have a proper understanding of MINE! Hell NO so where do you get off saying such a thing without even being aware of the monumental hypocrisy in that statement YOU MAKE in the SAME POST!

You not only have exhibited the very "flaw" you say exists in my argument but you don't know what I know about YOUR DEISM, MUCH LESS WHAT I DON'T

Ya know why??

Because you insist on drawing attention to your own hypocrisy lash! you DO IT AGAIN HERE:



" I know your god enjoys his pissing matches, so it's no surprise his followers do as well."


Who was it lash that DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO A "PISSING MATCH???"

ME THAT'S WHO!

Why do you continue to hang yourself so?

But you insisted and now you forced me to exploit the reasons why leaving you naked in your own self abusing ignorance of the Bible while falsely accusing me of everything you yourself are guilty of.

I was trying to avoid that but ya know what lash,,

you deserve it.

- Con











[edit on 6-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 
You are correct con, but please keep reading! My position remains there is no connection between them because there's no difference in micro and macro evolution, if you believe in one you believe in the other. Darwin = Evolution without the prefixes. The scientific community realizes no dofference in the evolutionary systems. His theories as to which species we evolved from are just that, He never proved any of these, The assertions you refer to are part of his hypothesis or hypothetical scientific guess. All evolutionists claim these theories to be fact when in fact they were never intended to be taken in that context. The only thing he ever proved was what you refer to as micro-evolution.

Adaptation is adaptation, evolution is evolution.


Also have you read the "Terra Papers" I did a little research on them, as I believe them to be science fiction, it reminded me of Star Wars! Reason I asked is someone in this thread posted it earlier, It was the first time I had read them, I was only curious to see your thoughts on them.



Read origin of species and see how we evolved according to Darwin -you bet yer blind side he was pushing Macro evolution.-Con


That's a hillarious statement, that type of smart*** statement used to anger me to no end, but now You give out my favorite responses! Do you have a fan club?


[edit on 6-7-2008 by azblack]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


That's assuming I cared about winning an argument with you lash

I never assumed you wanted to "win" anything.

You're an antagonist who likes reading cheap tricks to confound the average Christian.

I take no pleasure is badgering Christians. Although I do like debate. I simply ask whether these inconsistencies can be reconciled with reason and understanding, and am disappointed when the issue is frivolously skirted. Surely if these inconsistencies confound the average Christian someone would want to refute them to clear up any misconceptions.

The fact they knew that at all is testimony to the prophetic nature that could not have been known in that day and time.

Pythagoras reasoned that the Earth (and other planets) were spherical around 500 BCE. This is before the earliest known written Jewish biblical texts, so we don't know exactly which came first. However, Pythagoras didn't need prophecy or revelation. Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth with about a 5 to 10% margin of error around 240 BCE. He didn't need revelation either.

You can speculate on whether or not the ancient Hebrews thought the Earth was a round disk or a sphere - but the Greeks proved it.

it is when you nit pick at absolutely asinine details like why Adam was shown having nipples in artists renderings of the bible

Fail trap is fail.

I never postulated whether or not Adam had nipples. I only said that fetus's had nipples. This was an addendum to my previous argument was to question how it's reconciled that Adam, who was male, would have had a female chromosome before the creation of the first female. It is impossible for a human to have either a Y or YY chromosome and live, as the Y is incomplete.

YOU, and anyone who can read, will see that is is YOU who postulated that Adam didn't have nipples. This is not substantiated in the bible, so I simply called you on a claim you apparently have no way of validating.

another hatchet job of yours, so save the links to that trailer trash

I've never heard Thomas Paine's works referred to as "trailer Trash" before. I would have thought that Common Sense, The American Crisis, The Rights of Man, etc and their influence on the framing of the Constitution and the mindsets of our founding fathers would have garnered his opinion more merit than that - even if you fundamentally reject and don't agree with Age of Reason.

I suppose Thomas Jefferson, to you, is just a buck toothed stump jumping redneck as well due to his thoughts on the Bible.

Good Grief man! THINK!

Did they have a camera back then? NO!


Which, again, begs the question. How did YOU know he didn't have nipples, as you were the one who made the positive claim.

not EVERYTHING the Bible says the Bible endorses!

So... what you're describing is a contradiction? As in, the bible contains contradictions.

Sure! They have people like YOU who will buy the book.

Actually, God vs. The Bible is free to read cover to cover online. I'm sure you knew that though, since you apparently read it. Age of Reason is a classic literary work and is similarly free to read online. Not a penny spent.

Let's start with Hebrew shall we? The old form of the language didn't use vowels.

Irrelevant. The Lakota language has three extra (nasal) vowels. Further, their grammar is structured rather obtusely, generally following a subject, object, verb structure. So to say "Around the House" it would read House the around. Other languages provide other difficult problems, like Japanese who have many more characters than english - some describing entire complex concepts and is divided into three distinct scripts, Kanji, Katakana, and Hiragana.

This is where skilled translators come in, and to throw Armstrongs work out because he didn't read the original Hebrew and translate it himself would be to throw the entire King James and New Revised Standard Versions of the bible out. Which are what most Christians use.

But I suppose you know more about the Hebrew language than professional translators.

The Bible is what it is but conversely to YOU and YOUR understanding of it.

So you're saying that the bible is subjective to each individual, and not literal or inerrant.

Recently, Professor Richard Dawkins compared Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to Adolf Hitler and that wasn't scientific in the least but ya know why I am not whining about it like you are now?

Why would I give a damn about what Richard Dawkins says? I'm not an atheist, and I'm not affiliated with him. If you wished to criticize him on his use of a poor analogy and breaking Godwin's Law, I'd agree with you.

NOT everyone knows Hitler was obsessed with social Darwinism and it is undeniable.

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Evolution as postulated by Darwin. It was first coined in 1879 by Oscar Schmidt. Further, Adolph Hitler had very little to say on Darwinism (social or otherwise). You simply don't find it to be a theme in his speeches or writings. The most I recall he had to say about Evolution was in his book Mien Kamph, and even there is really more of a side-note and generally restricted to one chapter. It seems his views of Evolution were more in line with the "Micro"-evolution line while denouncing "Macro"-evolution.

Mien Kamph
It's all single paged text, so you can do a quick Ctrl-F word search in Firefox to spare you time.

And I stress his view on biological evolution, because that's what "Expelled" is taking objection to really, biological evolution. To rail about Hitlers disposition about Social Darwinism would be moot because, as already stated, Darwin and his theory have nothing to do with Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism

JUST try getting your information from the horses mouth for a change

First link is busted. UncommonDescent... why would I accept their side of the story with any credibility when they have already proven themselves to be deceitful? Maybe that works for you, and actually it would explain quite a lot.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

So what is your point? They were primitive Hebrews. The prophets had visions and were able to accurately conceive of the sky as a dome shape even though they had no understanding of what they saw in the vision in a modern scientific sense.



Whammy! Dude! Stop and think for a second, please! It doesn't take a vision from God to look up into the sky and draw the conclusion that it has a dome shape to it. All it takes is a primative Hebrew. Besides, why would God waste time trying to show what the cosmos were like, only to have it mis-interpreted? You figure if he really wanted to show the Earth was round he would have given them a vision from the Moon for example. Do you honestly think he was sitting there, trying to figure out a way to show the skeptics a couple thousand years later, scientific proof that the Bible was true? And that was the best he could come up with? The more likely case is that is the best you can come up with...

On a side note, I'll take your lack of response to your doubletalk earlier in this thread as an admission of guilt. Ahh, the sweet sound of silence!



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Who was it lash that DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO A "PISSING MATCH???"

ME THAT'S WHO!


So why did you even bother responding? Why should you care? Why the apparent overt hostility and CAPS LOCKS, which you know eggs people on? Why do you not back up your positive claims? I have no problems with civil discourse and free exchange of ideas, but I have seen absolutely zero indication that you have any inclination towards that. I only give back what I receive, which is why I can apparently still have a civil discourse with Miriam for example - but not you.

And besides, it takes two to tango.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by amfirst

Humans were created through DNA manipulation, that's why there is not a single human transition fossil can found because there isn't, when we can found thousands of other Dinosaur fossils.


Hardly a valid comment. Dinosaurs dominated the planet for roughly 160 million years, leaving them plenty of opportunities to leave behind their fossils. Our ancestors had to battle changing environments which caused a bottleneck in our population as it dipped to extinction-threatening lows. It's only been in the last 70,000 years that we began to truly spread and colonize the entire planet. That's the main reason why we haven't found many transitional fossils of our ancestors.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by azblack


You are correct con, but please keep reading! My position remains there is no connection between them because there's no difference in micro and macro evolution, if you believe in one you believe in the other. Darwin = Evolution without the prefixes. The scientific community realizes no dofference in the evolutionary systems.


AZBlack, you say you 're a Christian, so WHY do you try to harmonize the Bible to fit the word of God with Science? The Bible doesn't seek secular Science approval nor does it need to be validated by Science. If Science says something and it doesn't fit with the Bible, then Science has it wrong NOT the Bible. You SAY you're a Christian but you are putting your faith in man. The reason I am saying this ,, and THIS, or YOU are the reason I post to these boards, is I am afraid you are going to inadvertently add macro-evolution to your understanding of the genesis account and that concerns me. The moment you do that, begins the slippery slope. This is so Ironic because I had sent an emails to other Christians fearing this exact kind of problem where merging the two distinct and diametrically opposing postulates for Micro and Macro evolution should be the last straw in our struggle with this materialist POV and we need to get drop dead serious in destroying it.

When any Science seeks to bastardize the very terminology that gives precise meanings to that which has been tested and observed forcing everyone to accept those that have not by re-defining words to mean BOTH REGARDLESS of the facts, REGARDLESS of the truth, than that isn't Science my Friend. That is Atheism's wordsmithing games integrating a false dichotomy into the terminology to avoid further discent essentially creating an oxymoron which will come back and bite Science in the arse eventually. I mean think about it, this is a Science that touts the Scientific Method, critical thinking and logic yet embeds the very fallacy for assuming the consequent, affirming the consequent into a re-defined meaning for evolution which contains aspects of unproven constructs of macro evolution with proven and accepted ideas of micro using the logical fallacy for guilt by association in reverse (typical for Atheists) and passing it off as one meaning you either accept one with the other.

Whats next? what semantically synthesized section of the English tossed salad are they going to change forcing out any language that disagrees with Darwin and merge any others terminology still having a credible meaning? I mean this is pathetic and I don't care what the 98% of the Atheist NAS wants to do,, it ain't happenin.

Who the hell told you this crap? Horza?



His theories as to which species we evolved from are just that, He never proved any of these, The assertions you refer to are part of his hypothesis or hypothetical scientific guess. All evolutionists claim these theories to be fact when in fact they were never intended to be taken in that context. The only thing he ever proved was what you refer to as micro-evolution.



Yes



Also have you read the "Terra Papers" I did a little research on them, as I believe them to be science fiction, it reminded me of Star Wars! Reason I asked is someone in this thread posted it earlier, It was the first time I had read them, I was only curious to see your thoughts on them.


Yes I have read them, in fact I was reading them over again today. I haven't formulated an opinion as yet until I can cross referance some of it. It is interesting, though I can't deny that.



That's a hillarious statement, that type of smart*** statement used to anger me to no end, but now You give out my favorite responses! Do you have a fan club?



heh I don't know how to take that whether you're serious or not but yeah I get lots of u2u's from lurkers, mostly Christians that are too timid to post but give me encouraging words and support. I gotta say, I have the best friends anyone would have the good fortune to meet on these boards, many are 911 truthers and Christians, pagans and even some Atheists

I am going to ask them again pointing to this situation you have made me aware of, that we see the seriousness of this and really pound the books and the prayers we might pound polluting the Science Vernacular any further out of the obfuscated murky mud and back into the light of truth, defined with crystal clarity again.

Macro evolution is BUNK!

Pure un-adulterated

BS!

- Con



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
I'm fairly sure you don't either. But perhaps you could enlighten us. Please, browse this rather small list of inconsistencies and errors in your infallible book, compare them to the "original texts" and explain these falsehoods, inconsistencies, etc. It shouldn't take long for someone of your intellect, there's only fifteen chapters worth.


You post a link and I'm supposed to spend hours refuting a website
Yeah Right here's the answer : thedevineevidence.com...

On your lame point about Adam and Eve. How does that refute anything? It actually supports it!!! Thanks for helping to prove the accuracy of scripture, yet again. Obvious and very simple answer.

Since Adam wasn't born of a woman. By logic if you were going to create a man from a woman you would have to add material. It's much easier to take away than add.

So by your own reasoning Adam had all the necessary genetics (nipples and all) for a man and a woman. So to derive a woman from a man is much more logical than the other way around since it was done asexually the first time. Damn dude that was too easy. You basically pwned yourself. Again.



Truth is truth, even if you say it in parable or in different words. Your argument might have some merit if it was apparent that the writers of the bible were speaking of real phenomena dumbed down to simpler minds, but what it describes is so far beyond what we know to be true that there's really no way it can be reconciled.


Exactly truth is truth. You have yet to prove a single thing untrue. Quite the opposite, every point you tried to make has backfired in your face. You just demonstrate willful ignorance and bigotry. A cursory examination will always result in blatant errors like yours.



Malcontent? Is that what you call people who believe that positive claims be backed up with positive proof?


It's what I call people that use piss poor lazy scholarship (like the dead sea scrolls were all written after Christ) to refute something they don't have any understanding of - simply because they don't like the morals and rules contained with in.


Whammy! Dude! Stop and think for a second, please! It doesn't take a vision from God to look up into the sky and draw the conclusion that it has a dome shape to it. All it takes is a primative Hebrew. Besides, why would God waste time trying to show what the cosmos were like, only to have it mis-interpreted? You figure if he really wanted to show the Earth was round he would have given them a vision from the Moon for example. Do you honestly think he was sitting there, trying to figure out a way to show the skeptics a couple thousand years later, scientific proof that the Bible was true? And that was the best he could come up with? The more likely case is that is the best you can come up with...


They knew it was round. "Circle of the Earth" That wasn't discovered until 1000 years later. So after I refuted you ignorance -you don't admit it - Now you have moved the goal posts and changed your tune. Now you are actually quoting my earlier posts like it is your own words. That's pretty amusing.



Do you honestly think he was sitting there, trying to figure out a way to show the skeptics a couple thousand years later, scientific proof that the Bible was true?


Which was my original point to you. I take that as a concession even though your not big enough to admit it. You try to refute the Bible as if it were intended to be a 20th century science text book which is a lame fallacious form of propaganda not scholarship. That's all you have done. And failed at that.

All satire aside dude. Don't take it too personally. You really are missing the boat. Now you are changing your story... your Ego won't let you admit obvious errors and misconceptions. It's a one sided conversation when your so intellectually dishonest. Instead of admitting your Dead Sea scrolls error you go look up stuff and try to pretend to tell me about what I just schooled you on. That's pure dishonest egotism. At least be big enough to admit you are wrong. You will have more friends.


Because it is not about me beating you in a debate but my love for God. I would like to admit to you I used to be exactly like you. I did not become a believer until I was 37 years old. And I was highly critical of the Bible for a good while after becoming a Christian. It takes serious study and a willingness to put your prejudices aside to grasp it. Only after 2-3 years of effort with faith did I begin to see the big picture. I am still learning. Like Einstein says the more "I learn about science the more I believe in God." I add "the more I learn about the scriptures the more I see that they are true."

Anyway I respectfully take my leave of this conversation. The answers to your questions about the so called "errors" of the Bible are well documented and refuted. Try googling them and thedevineevidence.com...

You don't have to be full of fear and hate and loneliness. Jesus will change your life if you let him.


Romans 10:9-10 says: "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."




[edit on 7/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join