The Bible

[betsy]

(Interestingly, composing that led me to discover that there's actually a limit on the number of emoticons that can be included in a post. Surely betsy must've hit that limit; I wonder, though, if she ever paused to think about why it was put in place.)

Uh....why is there a limit to emoticons?

Why was that limit put in place? <look up ceiling. thinking>

Hmmmm....<think harder>

Aha! I got the answer now Bambino!

So we wouldn't be going over the limit?

That MLF is saying: You are allowed to use as much as you like, as long as you don't go over the limit????

And why put that limit?

Because they know Betsy loves to tease whiners....and will get out of hand using the emoticons to tease the daylights out of Bambino?

And knowing Bambino...he cannot ignore the allure of the emoticons? Fatal attraction?

And that he is definitely a certified whiner!

If he's a whiner now....just wait till you see how he'll be like with unlimited emoticons!

Everyone will go nuts listening to his endless wails? Waaaaaaaaah!

Whew! <with extreme feeling of relief> So glad to know I'm not dense after all!

Edited September 1, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

For her, this particular one is, and she's free to say so because of her convenient "literal when I want it, figurative when I want it" mode of operation.

Wrong again! Check the listed facts again, and read carefully - no skipping - what supports them as facts!

It's not me who's giving the evidence(s) that turns some verses to be literal!

It is science!

Edited September 1, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Wrong again! Check the listed facts again, and read carefully - no skipping - what supports them as facts!

It's not me who's giving the evidence(s) that turns some verses to be literal!

It is science!

Correction, it is you (with the occasional help of others who share the same lack of understanding of the Bible but not your arrogance/lack of manners/childish behaviour etc. etc. etc.) takse texts in the Bbil and says "Look, it described this or that phenomenum recently discovered by science" when anybody with the bible, good reading skills and understanding of science knows that no, it doesn't. And trumpets archeological findings and scream "This proves the Bbible to be true" is true, when any person of FAITH (you know, that five letter words that is almost as absent from your postings as any sign of understanding of most things) knows that they need FAITH.

[betsy]

You win betsy, you win. And I will stop doing it... the moment you stop arguing that 1 + 1 = 7. After all, if I have toi stop doing something that I'm not doing, fairness demands that you stop doing something you're not doing.

The weird thing is that you don't even realize that you're the one who's claiming,

"1 + 1 = 7!"

You are claiming something that's not. You've come up with a sum that does not tally.

I'll explain to you one last time. Wrap your mind on this statement and chew on it:

The Bible is not trying to prove science. It's the other way around. Science supports the Bible!

Let's use an example to an irrational argument you tried to make - gravity.

The Bible described that heavens - nothing hold it up. The Bible doesn't say it is gravity! Science discovered that it is so - nothing holds it up. They call it gravity.

The Bible described the stretching of the heavens, 11 times. The Bible doesn't say this is a scientific explanation. It is just the Creator describing His creation.

Science discovered later on that it is expanding. Then science made a much clearer explanation - the correct description is that it is stretching.

Whether the Bible is allegorical or not, does not make any difference.

The listed facts (plus counting) are supported by science!

That they are supported by science may be uncanny - but that's the fact, nevertheless.

Whether the Bible is allegorical or not, these are still supported by science.

Therefore, your insistence on your so-called argument is nil. Again, there is no argument!

Your argument is not only non-existent, but also quite irrational when this so-called argument - which practically tries to discredit the Bible - comes from someone who claims to be a christian. 1 + 1 does not make 7.

Edited September 1, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

The weird thing is that you don't even realize that you're the one who's claiming,

"1 + 1 = 7!"

Not surprizingly, you are ALSO unable to understand it when somone mocks you. Let me explain it to you. You wanted me to stop doing something that I am not doing,so I asked you to stop doing something you're not doing. Get it now?

The Bible described that heavens - nothing hold it up. The Bible doesn't say it is gravity! Science discovered that it is so - nothing holds it up. They call it gravity.

Nice try. The description given in the Bible doesn't even come close to a description of gravity, even as an allegory. That you think it does shows your own poor understanding of gravity. But it doesn't matter. The Bible is still the word of God.

The Bible described the stretching of the heavens, 11 times. The Bible doesn't say this is a scientific explanation. It is just the Creator describing His creation.

Science discovered later on that it is expanding. Then science made a much clearer explanation - the correct description is that it is stretching.

The stretching out mentioned (actually more than 11 times) is akin to a canvas being put out. Not an expension. But it doesn't matter. The Bible is still the Word of God.

It is the word of God not because of how the writers described God's creation. It is the word of God because God who created the Universe inspired them to say that He created the Universe, and they did it with the knowledge of the Universe that they had. Simple, and the beauty of FAITH is that one who has it and rely on it can marvel at the beauty of creation and the love of God who created, and not try to come up with all kinds of non-sensical ideas about how the Bible allegedly spoke about recent scientific theories (except, of course, those that do not match a literal reading of certain verses).

If ET landed in your backyard and started to shoot at everything or everyone around, your first reaction would be to try to find where in the Bible his existence was alluded to. I would either hide, or fight.

Therefore, your insistence on your so-called argument is nil. Again, there is no argument![/Quote]

Translation... betsy has spoken (and in case you won't notice... err I mean BECAUSE you won'tnotice, I am mocking you with that sentence.

Edited September 1, 2011 by CANADIEN

[cybercoma]

I was also asking if I can make that 7 point font flash....you know, psychedelic, disco-style? Something really eye-catching. Maybe in candy colors?

All this time I though I'm talking to the blind and deaf here (since they seem to overlook and skip important, pertinent details).....but maybe I'm debating with children!

The Deaf communicate just fine when you "speak" their language, thank you very much.

[g_bambino]

Check the listed facts again...

You've posted that junk enough times for me to have seen it more than a few times too many. It proves nothing: you take the Bible literally when it suits you and you take it figuratively when it suits you.

Some of the "facts" you provided came with no corresponding Biblical passages. Of the remainder, many themselves require a subjective interpretation of either the Bible's words or the science in order to make them "match": The Bible's "proof" that there's an incalculable number of stars requires the assumption that science has told us there's an incalculable number of stars. The Bible's "proof" of an expanding universe requires one to assume not only that the writers of the Bible knew the heavens stretched any farther than the bounds of the visible horizon, but also that God (assuming there is one) continues to stretch heavens we're to assume have an infinite capability of stretching. The Bible's "proof" that the earth is a sphere requires one to interpret the word "circle" as "sphere". The Bible's "proof" of atoms requires one to assume science has told us atoms are invisible and then, subsequently, that these invisible atoms are God. Still more "facts" are simply your regurgitation of some other person's "science" based on subjective readings of the Bible: i.e. the finished creation, which requires one to read Genesis 2:1,2 as though it said for certain that God was completely done creating matter at the end of his seven day project. And other "facts" leave one saying: so what? So the Bible talks about mountains and trenches in the oceans? So the Bible talks about ocean currents? Mariners were aware of those things centuries before the Bible existed. So the Bible mentions shipbuilding? Shipbuilders were aware of the trade centuries before the Bible existed. So the Bible talks about rain feeding rivers? People were aware of that (and the process of condensation) centuries before the Bible existed. (I said this before: You go on in deliberate ignorance of the existence of the cultures in Ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, Central America, and China, and the knowledge they possessed fully through investigation and discovery, without ever having known of your God or the Bible.)

And that shoddy mess of partial construal and irrelevancies is supposed to serve as the foundation upon which you build the claim that the Bible is proof of the existence of God? It's so preposterous it ends up as nothing more than a joke.

[betsy]

Not surprizingly, you are ALSO unable to understand it when somone mocks you. Let me explain it to you. You wanted me to stop doing something that I am not doing,so I asked you to stop doing something you're not doing. Get it now?

Nice try. The description given in the Bible doesn't even come close to a description of gravity, even as an allegory. That you think it does shows your own poor understanding of gravity. But it doesn't matter. The Bible is still the word of God.

The stretching out mentioned (actually more than 11 times) is akin to a canvas being put out. Not an expension. But it doesn't matter. The Bible is still the Word of God.

It is the word of God not because of how the writers described God's creation. It is the word of God because God who created the Universe inspired them to say that He created the Universe, and they did it with the knowledge of the Universe that they had. Simple, and the beauty of FAITH is that one who has it and rely on it can marvel at the beauty of creation and the love of God who created, and not try to come up with all kinds of non-sensical ideas about how the Bible allegedly spoke about recent scientific theories (except, of course, those that do not match a literal reading of certain verses).

If ET landed in your backyard and started to shoot at everything or everyone around, your first reaction would be to try to find where in the Bible his existence was alluded to. I would either hide, or fight.

Translation... betsy has spoken (and in case you won't notice... err I mean BECAUSE you won'tnotice, I am mocking you with that sentence.

How can one tell with you whether you're...ahem, "mocking".....or insisting on your rebutt?

So you're "mocking." If you say so. Mock away....

I wasn't mocking you though. You've been bringing that convoluted and irrational argument about science and Bible, which you find so offensive. So I thought you probably just misunderstood. I was just spelling it the way it is.

But obviously, you still don't get it - based on your reply.

What can I say? If you don't get it, you don't get it.

That's it then. The end.

Edited September 1, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

How can one tell with you whether you're...ahem, "mocking".....or insisting on your rebutt?

So you're "mocking." If you say so. Mock away....

Clarification.. YOU can't tell.

I wasn't mocking you though. You've been bringing that convoluted and irrational argument about science and Bible, which you find so offensive. So I thought you probably just misunderstood. I was just spelling it the way it is.

Correction. The convoluted and non-sense is YOURS.

But obviously, you still don't get it - based on your reply.

What can I say? If you don't get it, you don't get it.

OF COURSE I don't get it. I only get what makes sense.

That's it then. The end.

Not the end. You know you'll keep doing everything in your power to be treated like a fool, and right now I enjoy treating you accordingly.

Edited September 2, 2011 by CANADIEN

[betsy]

#55.

FACT: "The special creationist's picture of the world's formation is not a necessary component of Christian belief."

[betsy]

Let's do a recap of all facts listed so far.

1 FACT: Nothing holds up Earth. It is affected by gravity.

2 FACT: The earth is round.

3 FACT: There is an incalculable number of stars.

4 FACT: Mountains and trenches in the deep blue sea.

5 FACT: Invisible atoms, the building blocks

6 FACT: Noahs Ark and Ship Building p. 1

7 FACT: Many of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science were creationists! p 2

8 FACT: A finished creation. p 2

9 FACT: The universe is deteriorating p 3

10 FACT: The Universe Must Have Had a Beginning p 3

11 FACT:: Existence of ocean currents p 3

12 FACT: SCIENCE REMAINS BAFFLED! p 3

13 FACT: EXPANDING UNIVERSE p 4

14 FACT: Hydrological Cycle or Water Cycle p 4

15 FACT: Science remains baffled - Part 2: .. Knowledge and understanding of our beginning trickles down ever so slowly. p 5

16 FACT: PROPHECIES HAVE COME TRUE! p 5

17 FACT:

EXPANDING UNIVERSE: SCIENCE GIVES AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION BY THE WORD "STRETCH!

18 FACT: Expression - "CURVATURE OF SPACE," still related to STRETCHING UNIVERSE

19 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

WOUND, SKIN and DISCHARGE PRECAUTIONS

20 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

WASTE DISPOSAL

21 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

DIAGNOSIS and ISOLATION[

22 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

CORPSES and BURIAL PRECAUTIONS

23 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

FOOD and DRINKING WATER SAFETY

24 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

PROMISCUITY, UNLAWFUL LIFESTYLES and DISEASE

25 FACT: The human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements which are all found in the earth

26 FACT: BLOOD THE RIVER OF LIFE

27 FACT: RODINIA and PANTHALASSA, One land and one ocean! p. 12

28 FACT: Man is superior to all other living things. p.36

29 FACT: SCIENTISTS NAME and CLASSIFY CREATURES p. 37

30 FACT: MODERN-DAY DEADLY VIRUS COULD BE PREVENTED FROM SPREADING BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE BIBLE p. 39

31 FACT: NO ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY HAS CONTRADICTED A BIBLICAL REFERENCE! p.43

32 FACT: THE REGENERATING RIBS p.47

33 FACT: CIRCUMCISION IS BEST DONE ON THE 8th DAY! p. 47

34 FACT: ARCHEOLOGY UNEARTHED THE EBLA TABLETS p. 48

35 FACT: ARCHEOLOGICAL FIND AT KHIRBAT EN-NAHAS IN LINE WITH

BIBLICAL NARRATIVE OF DAVID AND SOLOMON p. 50

36 FACT: ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY IN TEL DAN PROVIDES A CONNECTION TO THE RULING DYNASTY OF KING DAVID p. 55

37 FACT: ARCHEOLOGY DISCOVERED THE NUZI TABLETS SHOWING THAT THE CULTURAL PRACTICES WRITTEN IN GENESIS ARE AUTHENTIC p. 57

38 FACT: ARCHEOLOGY DISCOVERED THE MARI TABLETS p. 57

39 FACT: THREE SEPARATE BIBLICAL FACTS CONFIRMED BY NEBO-SARSEKIM CUNEIFORM TABLET p. 57

40 FACT: ARCHEOLOGY FOUND LACHISH p. 58

41. FACT: THE LACHISH LETTERS INLINE WITH THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE OF THE PROPHET JEREMIAH p. 58

42. FACT: Archeological findings in TELL EN-NASBEH in-line with the Biblical narratives p.58

43. FACT: Archeological finding at TAHPANHES in-line with Biblical narrative of Jeremiah

p. 58

44. FACT: Archeology discovered SODOM AND GOMORRAH p.59

45. FACT: ARCHEOLOGY SHOWS EVIDENCE THAT THE BIBLE PROVIDES AN ACCURATE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF EVENTS THAT OCCURRED SOUTHEAST OF THE DEAD SEA OVER 4,000 YEARS AGO. p 61

46. FACT: MODERN WESTERN SCIENCE WAS FOUNDED UPON JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PRESUPPOSITIONAL FOUNDATIONS FROM THE BIBLE p 62

47. FACT: "THE BIBLE SPEAKS RATHER EXPLICITLY ABOUT BASIC PRINCIPLES IN EVERY AREA OF SCIENCE" p 63

48. FACT: KEPLERS 8 MINUTES p. 63

49. FACT: NOTABLE INVENTIONS AND DISCOVERIES FROM THE PAST 800 YEARS BY THOSE WORKING FROM THE BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW OF NATURE

50 FACT: NOBEL PRIZES AWARDED TO JEWS WORKING FROM THE BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW

51 FACT: DISCOVERY OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS p 67

52. FACT: ARCHEOLOGY FOUND THE POOL OF BETHESDA, WHERE JESUS HEALED THE INVALID p 68

53. FACT: ARCHEOLOGY DISCOVERED THE POOL OF SILOAM, WHERE JESUS HEALED THE BLIND p 68

54. FACT: "The Bible is written by over forty authors from every walk of life, over a period of at least fifteen hundred years, in three completely different languages, in various styles, in scores of situations, on three continents in a day when people didnt travel very much" p 70

55. FACT: "The special creationist's picture of the world's formation is not a necessary component of Christian belief." P. 76

Edited September 3, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Let's do a recap of all facts listed so far.

1 FACT: Nothing holds up Earth. It is affected by gravity.

2 FACT: The earth is round.

3 FACT: There is an incalculable number of stars.

4 FACT: Mountains and trenches in the deep blue sea.

5 FACT: Invisible atoms, the building blocks

6 FACT: Noah’s Ark and Ship Building p. 1

7 FACT: “Many of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science were creationists!” p 2

8 FACT: A finished creation. p 2

9 FACT: The universe is deteriorating p 3

10 FACT: The Universe Must Have Had a Beginning p 3

11 FACT:: Existence of ocean currents p 3

12 FACT: SCIENCE REMAINS BAFFLED! p 3

13 FACT: EXPANDING UNIVERSE p 4

14 FACT: Hydrological Cycle or Water Cycle p 4

15 FACT: Science remains baffled - Part 2: .. Knowledge and understanding of our beginning trickles down ever so slowly. p 5

16 FACT: PROPHECIES HAVE COME TRUE! p 5

17 FACT:

EXPANDING UNIVERSE: SCIENCE GIVES AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION BY THE WORD "STRETCH!

18 FACT: Expression - "CURVATURE OF SPACE," still related to STRETCHING UNIVERSE

19 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

WOUND, SKIN and DISCHARGE PRECAUTIONS

20 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

WASTE DISPOSAL

21 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

DIAGNOSIS and ISOLATION[

22 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

CORPSES and BURIAL PRECAUTIONS

23 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

FOOD and DRINKING WATER SAFETY

24 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

PROMISCUITY, UNLAWFUL LIFESTYLES and DISEASE

25 FACT: The human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements which are all found in the earth

26 FACT: BLOOD – THE RIVER OF LIFE

27 FACT: RODINIA and PANTHALASSA, One land and one ocean! p. 12

28 FACT: Man is superior to all other living things. p.36

29 FACT: SCIENTISTS NAME and CLASSIFY CREATURES p. 37

30 FACT: MODERN-DAY DEADLY VIRUS COULD BE PREVENTED FROM SPREADING BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE BIBLE p. 39

31 FACT: NO ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY HAS CONTRADICTED A BIBLICAL REFERENCE! p.43

32 FACT: THE REGENERATING RIBS p.47

33 FACT: CIRCUMCISION IS BEST DONE ON THE 8th DAY! p. 47

34 FACT: ARCHEOLOGY UNEARTHED THE EBLA TABLETS p. 48

35 FACT: ARCHEOLOGICAL FIND AT KHIRBAT EN-NAHAS IN LINE WITH

BIBLICAL NARRATIVE OF DAVID AND SOLOMON p. 50

36 FACT: ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY IN TEL DAN PROVIDES A CONNECTION TO THE RULING DYNASTY OF KING DAVID p. 55

37 FACT: ARCHEOLOGY DISCOVERED THE NUZI TABLETS SHOWING THAT THE CULTURAL PRACTICES WRITTEN IN GENESIS ARE AUTHENTIC p. 57

38 FACT: ARCHEOLOGY DISCOVERED THE MARI TABLETS p. 57

39 FACT: THREE SEPARATE BIBLICAL FACTS CONFIRMED BY NEBO-SARSEKIM CUNEIFORM TABLET p. 57

40 FACT: ARCHEOLOGY FOUND LACHISH p. 58

41. FACT: THE LACHISH LETTERS INLINE WITH THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE OF THE PROPHET JEREMIAH p. 58

42. FACT: Archeological findings in TELL EN-NASBEH in-line with the Biblical narratives p.58

43. FACT: Archeological finding at TAHPANHES in-line with Biblical narrative of Jeremiah

p. 58

44. FACT: Archeology discovered SODOM AND GOMORRAH p.59

45. FACT: ARCHEOLOGY SHOWS EVIDENCE THAT THE BIBLE PROVIDES AN ACCURATE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF EVENTS THAT OCCURRED SOUTHEAST OF THE DEAD SEA OVER 4,000 YEARS AGO. p 61

46. FACT: MODERN WESTERN SCIENCE WAS FOUNDED UPON JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PRESUPPOSITIONAL FOUNDATIONS FROM THE BIBLE p 62

47. FACT: "THE BIBLE SPEAKS RATHER EXPLICITLY ABOUT BASIC PRINCIPLES IN EVERY AREA OF SCIENCE" p 63

48. FACT: KEPLER’S 8 MINUTES p. 63

49. FACT: NOTABLE INVENTIONS AND DISCOVERIES FROM THE PAST 800 YEARS BY THOSE WORKING FROM THE BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW OF NATURE

50 FACT: NOBEL PRIZES AWARDED TO JEWS WORKING FROM THE BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW

51 FACT: DISCOVERY OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS p 67

52. FACT: ARCHEOLOGY FOUND THE POOL OF BETHESDA, WHERE JESUS HEALED THE INVALID p 68

53. FACT: ARCHEOLOGY DISCOVERED THE POOL OF SILOAM, WHERE JESUS HEALED THE BLIND p 68

54. FACT: "The Bible is written by over forty authors from every walk of life, over a period of at least fifteen hundred years, in three completely different languages, in various styles, in scores of situations, on three continents in a day when people didn’t travel very much" p 70

55. FACT: "The special creationist's picture of the world's formation is not a necessary component of Christian belief." P. 76

Out of common courtesy for others, i will not debunk what has been already debunked.

Interesting point 55, though, coming from someone who insists that Christians who KNOW that the "special creationist" picture is a non-sense are in fact atheists.

betsy: I am right

others: but what you say makes no sense

betsy: I am right

others: but what you say makes no sense

betsy: you don't have to agree with me. See? I am right and you're wrong.

Edited September 3, 2011 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

Some of the "facts" you provided came with no corresponding Biblical passages. Of the remainder, many themselves require a subjective interpretation of either the Bible's words or the science in order to make them "match":

This is it in a nutshell.

Betsy's search for pieces of the Bible that coincide with scientific facts is like a psychic hotline caller figuring out ways the psychic could be talking to her. "A tall man... I DO know a tall man! Mike from accounting! You really ARE a psychic!"

At one point Betsy proposed that when Genesis mentioned darkness, it could be talking about dark matter and black holes... which tells you all that need be said about Betsy's thought process.

Another thing that illustrates Betsy's thought process: earlier on she was berating another poster and claiming he wasn't a real Christian for daring to believe that Genesis is allegorical. But when it's demonstrated that Noah's flood couldn't have happened the way it's described in the Bible, she's completely willing to accept that it was allegorical.

And now that Dr Craig has told her that it's completely reasonable to believe that the Bible's account of creation is allegorical, suddenly she's decided it's OK for Christians to believe it. I guess Canadien can be a real Christian again, thanks to Dr Craig.

-k

[CANADIEN]

This is it in a nutshell.

Betsy's search for pieces of the Bible that coincide with scientific facts is like a psychic hotline caller figuring out ways the psychic could be talking to her. "A tall man... I DO know a tall man! Mike from accounting! You really ARE a psychic!"

At one point Betsy proposed that when Genesis mentioned darkness, it could be talking about dark matter and black holes... which tells you all that need be said about Betsy's thought process.

Another thing that illustrates Betsy's thought process: earlier on she was berating another poster and claiming he wasn't a real Christian for daring to believe that Genesis is allegorical. But when it's demonstrated that Noah's flood couldn't have happened the way it's described in the Bible, she's completely willing to accept that it was allegorical.

And now that Dr Craig has told her that it's completely reasonable to believe that the Bible's account of creation is allegorical, suddenly she's decided it's OK for Christians to believe it. I guess Canadien can be a real Christian again, thanks to Dr Craig.

-k

Not quite... It's OK for Christians to have a interpretation that differs from betsy's, but anyone whose interpretation differs from her is not a Christian.

Edited September 3, 2011 by CANADIEN

[betsy]

Deal with this first, Kimmy.

Did we ever get "facts" explaining the Adam's Rib story, or how Lot's wife was spontaneously transformed into a pillar of salt? These Bible stories certainly seem to contradict one of betsy's earlier "facts", a "finished creation" where matter can not be created. -k

You missed the point: Eve weighed at least 100lbs. A rib weighs less than 1lb. If Eve was constructed from a rib, we've again created at least 100lbs of matter.

-k

No, it is you who's missing the whole point.

I've already gone through with suppositions. Now - supposition or not - regarding your issue with the creation of Eve....

Answer this simple question.

When was Eve created?

Before or after Creation was finished?

Edited September 3, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

This is it in a nutshell.

Betsy's search for pieces of the Bible that coincide with scientific facts is like a psychic hotline caller figuring out ways the psychic could be talking to her. "A tall man... I DO know a tall man! Mike from accounting! You really ARE a psychic!"

At one point Betsy proposed that when Genesis mentioned darkness, it could be talking about dark matter and black holes... which tells you all that need be said about Betsy's thought process.

Another thing that illustrates Betsy's thought process: earlier on she was berating another poster and claiming he wasn't a real Christian for daring to believe that Genesis is allegorical. But when it's demonstrated that Noah's flood couldn't have happened the way it's described in the Bible, she's completely willing to accept that it was allegorical.

And now that Dr Craig has told her that it's completely reasonable to believe that the Bible's account of creation is allegorical, suddenly she's decided it's OK for Christians to believe it. -k

Hoooooo....

Nutshell, my foot!

You didn't "nutshell" the word, adhominem, from the other topic, What is a new atheist?"

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19376&st=135

You couldn't even deal with the simple "nutshell" of Eve....and here you are claiming to "nutshell" this!

Kimmy:

I guess Canadien can be a real Christian again, thanks to Dr Craig.

Well, apparently not...... according to Canadien!

Canadien does not agree with Craig!

Canadien is arguing with his own argument!

Canadien's pov vs Canadien's pov! Go figure.

Ooooops, I guess you couldn't possibly figure that one....what more, "nutshell" it either.

Edited September 3, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Canadien does not agree with Craig!

There is one God, God, and Dr. Craig is His Prophet.

Canadien is arguing with his own argument!

Canadien's pov vs Canadien's pov! Go figure.

betsy: Evolution proves that God exists. Dr. Craig has spoken.

me: First he says it doesn't exist, then he says that it's existence would be a miracle. Then he says it proves the existence of God. Doesn't make sense.

betsy: Evolution doesn't exist. Dr. Craig has spoken.

me: In that case, how could it prove that God exist.

betsy: He doesn't say it proves god exists.

me: That's not what you first said.

betsy: See. You're arguing against yourself. I am right again.

Edited September 3, 2011 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

I've already gone through with suppositions. Now - supposition or not - regarding your issue with the creation of Eve....

Answer this simple question.

When was Eve created?

Before or after Creation was finished?

Ok, Eve is not a counter-example to "a finished creation" because Eve was not created after creation. Fair point.

Lot's wife, on the other hand... you proposed that maybe the salt was gathered from the surrounding air rather than spontaneously created. Supposing that were the case, then matter was not spontaneously created. However, gathering salt molecules from miles around to that specific location and then either infusing it into her body or crystalizing it around her would require an immense amount of energy. Your fact "a finished creation" specifies that neither matter nor energy can be created. So where did the energy to turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt come from?

Let's see... what else have you been demanding answers for? How tall is Mt Ararat? It's pretty darn tall. Over 16,000 ft!

And the big question you have asked: How can you dispute a fact (a finished creation) with a supposition (Noah's flood)? The goal wasn't to dispute "a finished creation". The goal was to illustrate that if God is constrained by that rule-- no more creating matter and energy after Creation-- then other stuff in the Bible couldn't have happened the way the Bible says it does. The Bible contradicts the rules set forth by the "facts" you have listed. So we get... "well, ok, maybe that part is allegorical." We got you to concede that Noah's flood must be allegorical, which is a response I'd accept from anybody else, but considering you were ranting at Canadien for daring to suggest that Genesis is allegorical, it sounds kind of hollow coming from you. But now that Dr Craig says it's ok for Christians to believe that creation is allegorical (fact #55!) suddenly you're ok with that too. Your world view seems to shift according to what's convenient to your argument and to what Dr Craig tells you.

-k

Edited September 4, 2011 by kimmy

[betsy]

Ok, Eve is not a counter-example to "a finished creation" because Eve was not created after creation. Fair point.

Lot's wife, on the other hand... you proposed that maybe the salt was gathered from the surrounding air rather than spontaneously created.

We've dealt with Lot's wife. Like I asked: what does it mean that she turned into a pillar of salt? Did she turn completely into salt? Half-salt? Was she encased in salt?

You're implying about the "creation" of salt? And I surmised, have you experienced living near salt water? Experienced how at the end of the day, you can feel fine grits of salt on your skin and hair?

Anyhow....we'll never find out about her. If that part of Genesis is indeed literal...she's melted a long time ago!

Kimmy:

Supposing that were the case, then matter was not spontaneously created. However, gathering salt molecules from miles around to that specific location and then either infusing it into her body or crystalizing it around her would require an immense amount of energy. Your fact "a finished creation" specifies that neither matter nor energy can be created. So where did the energy to turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt come from?

"Supposing".....another word for, if.

Even if it were true, how do you know that God required an "immense amount of energy" to gather the salt molecules from miles around?

And the big question you have asked: How can you dispute a fact (a finished creation) with a supposition (Noah's flood)? The goal wasn't to dispute "a finished creation". The goal was to illustrate that if God is constrained by that rule-- no more creating matter and energy after Creation-- then other stuff in the Bible couldn't have happened the way the Bible says it does.

Therefore, you're contradicting "a finished creation."

The Bible contradicts the rules set forth by the "facts" you have listed.

No. You're claiming the Bible contradicts the facts by using suppositions.

Lot's wife. Noah's ark. Mt. Ararat. Eve.

Kimmy....Kimmy....Kimmy...read your statement again:

The goal was to illustrate that if God is constrained by that rule --

See that boldened, "IF?"

They're all suppositions!

Furthermore, to suggest that God - who's supposed to be the supreme Being and Creator of all things - to be "constrained"....

So we get... "well, ok, maybe that part is allegorical." We got you to concede that Noah's flood must be allegorical, which is a response I'd accept from anybody else, but considering you were ranting at Canadien for daring to suggest that Genesis is allegorical, it sounds kind of hollow coming from you.

The quicksand's already up to your eyeballs....and you got me to "concede." How can you? You could hardly talk....much more talk your way out of your predicament now!

There's been a lot of surmising. I also said that perhaps the animals were eggs and babies so they could fit in the ark! That's a supposition! You think you're the only ones allowed to give suppositions?

You find it "hollow" because since you know I'm a Christian....you've got me neatly "profiled" in your mind?

That therefore, I must believe that earth is only a few thousands years old....

I might've been ranting to Canadien but definitely not to say that all of Genesis is literal. I've already stated my position way back, several times....that I don't believe in a young earth!

So, if I don't believe in a young earth....what kind of logic makes you think I consider everything in Genesis as literal?

Anyway, cite that quote you're talking about and give the link. Let's see what I've stated, exactly.

But now that Dr Craig says it's ok for Christians to believe that creation is allegorical (fact #55!) suddenly you're ok with that too.

No. Not everything is allegorical! Like I said, some are also literal.

Your world view seems to shift according to what's convenient to your argument and to what Dr Craig tells you. -k

I've been upfront saying that my views may change, depending on future discoveries! Like in Noah's Ark! Right now I think it's allegorical. Hey, who knows maybe tomorrow they'll find evidence that it's not, after all, allegorical!

I go where the evidences lead. I've been saying all along, I believe that science is a tool of God.

Anyway, what's wrong with having Dr Craig to support my arguments? You don't have any problems believing and spitting out the views of Dawkins, right?

Well, my Dr Craig whomps your Mr. Dawkins. That is if he can find Dawkins at all!

Edited September 5, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

No. You're claiming the Bible contradicts the facts by using suppositions. Lot's wife.

Noah's ark. Mt. Ararat. Eve.

Read your statement again:

They're all suppositions.

Care to expend on that statement of yours that Eve is a supposition.

[CANADIEN]

No. You're claiming the Bible contradicts the facts by using suppositions. Lot's wife.

Noah's ark. Mt. Ararat. Eve.

Read your statement again:

They're all suppositions.

Care to expend on that statement of yours that Eve is a supposition?

[betsy]

Care to expend on that statement of yours that Eve is a supposition?

Follow the trail. Kimmy knows what I mean.

[betsy]

I'm sorry Kimmy. My responses to you got so carried away too.

Let's blame it on Canadien?

[betsy]

Canadien,

Let me get this straight. I don't think you ever did confirm and I just assumed it.

So, for the record:

Do you support Intelligent Design?

Edited September 5, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Canadien,

Let me get this straight. I don't think you ever did confirm and I just assumed it.

So, for the record:

Do you support Intelligent Design?

I have been very clear on my belief regarding the Creator God. Feel free to call him whatever you want, I will call by His one name: GOD.

I also been very clear on what I think of the fraudulent pseudo-science that seeks to undermine real and sound scientific knowledge, namely the evolution of life from early life forms to the current ones, including humans. But just in case...

`The "Intelligent Design" movement's premise, that life forms are essentially the same today as they were in the beginning, is scientifically unsound. Its claim that life is too complex to have evolved is scientifically unsound. Its methods have nothing do with science, and its claim there is a huge controversy among scientitists regarding evolution, is false. Less and less Christians are buying this little trick of passing knwoledge gained through faith (the creator God) as scientifc knowledge in order to undermine scientific knowledge some don't like.

Edited September 5, 2011 by CANADIEN