The Bible

[cybercoma]

Not that betsy will bother reading it, but this website breaks the evidence for evolution down as simply as possible:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

[betsy]

How the universe and earth came to be is still a mystery that science is trying to unlock.

How life started on earth remains a mystery that science is still trying to unlock. Science says it knows "some" of how life started, but that there are still some details to be filled in.

As the preceding cut-and-paste articles showed, the big problem with science is in the details - the details that they are providing....to fill in the gap.

The hoaxes and fraud, and falsifications of data, not to mention that well-known scientists such as Dawkins made unsubstantiated and counter-factual claims, had put into question everything about the theory of evolution!

Macro-evolution is not observable! We rely on their research and findings. But if they can falsify, mislead and lie about some things, why can't they lie about everything?

Evolutionists having faith and relying on science to know the truth about origin is exactly the same as Creationists having faith and relying on The Bible to know the truth about origin.

Science is to evolutionists as the Bible is to Creationists. However...whereas science is still trying to find its evidence of evolution and universe.....

....the Bible - on the other hand - knows several facts about the earth, the universe and origin of life long before science did!

All these Biblical declarations pertaining to man and origin, the universe and earth are all proven as facts!

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

FACT: The earth is round.

FACT: There is an incalculable number of stars.

FACT: Mountains and trenches in the deep blue sea.

FACT: Invisible atoms, the building blocks

FACT: Noah’s Ark and Ship Building

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

FACT: A finished creation.

FACT: The universe is deteriorating

FACT: The Universe Must Have Had a Beginning

FACT:: Existence of ocean currents

FACT: SCIENCE REMAINS BAFFLED!

FACT: EXPANDING UNIVERSE

FACT: Hydrological Cycle or Water Cycle

FACT: PROPHECIES HAVE COME TRUE!

FACT:

EXPANDING UNIVERSE: Science uses the word, "STRETCHING/STRETCHES/STRETCHED!”

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

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

FACT: BLOOD – THE RIVER OF LIFE

FACT: RODINIA and PANTHALASSA, One land and one ocean!

---------------------

Concentrating on these incredible Biblical facts alone, how do you explain this other than the One who gave these information has to be the Creator/Designer!

FACT: EXPANDING UNIVERSE

FACT:

EXPANDING UNIVERSE: Science uses the word, "STRETCHING/STRETCHES/STRETCHED!”

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

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

FACT: BLOOD – THE RIVER OF LIFE

FACT: RODINIA and PANTHALASSA, One land and one ocean!

Edited June 3, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

deleted. double.

Edited June 3, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

I am a proud and practicing member of the Jewish faith. We have the Creation story in our Old Testament as well.

I don't think that people of faith are well-served by denying the power of the human mind to reason. The fact is that we now know roughly the chain of evolution, and roughly the timeline of development of life, human and otherwise. This knowledge is constantly subject to revision based upon new facts. The fact is that G-d gave us this power of reasoning. No believer in the Bible can reasonably deny that.

What science has not yet told us is how the original earth came to be with apparently unique abilities to sustain life as we know it. Yes, there are likely similar such bodies around the universe. We do not know. And if we do get visual evidence of them, we do not know, light years away from when the visual images are created, if they still exist.

I believe that G-d has a role as the original creator. I would say there may be some "play" in the chronological numbers and details.

First, I'm just curious....why do you refer to God as "G-d?"

I don't think men of faith are denying the power of the human mind to reason, after all that is God-given too. It's one of those qualities that separates man from the other creations of God (such as the land animals, the sea creatures, birds and plants!)

Man - which is made in the "image" of God - is the only creation that can reason. I'm sure a monkey does not contemplate how the universe began, or who its ancestors were, what more concern itself whether grabbing a banana from another is a sin, or what happens next after death!

If there's anyone who tries to deny the power of reason, I think it's the evolutionist scientists. Otherwise, why would Dawkins declare "Philosophy is dead?"

Atheist men of reason who see both sides of evidences/arguments from the Creationists and Evolutionists scientists and who follow the logic of origin ends up becoming deist or Christians!

And no, we do not know anything about the chain of evolution! What we do know is that evolutionist scientists are trying everything to come up with new theories, including fraud/hoaxes/lies, to fill in the gaps in order to fit their idea of origin!

As I've said before, if science and reputed scientists like Dawkins, can go to far lengths as to commit fraud/hoaxes/misleading and unsubstantiated claims, if they can lie about some things, why can't they not lie about everything? How do you sift lies from facts?

Jbg, the big problem with macro-evolution is that, not only does it have no valid evidence at all that it exists, but that it is supposed to prove to you that there is no God!

That your Bible is nothing more than a mythological book.

I'm not sure if you've followed the whole discussion on this thread. Refer to this:

FACT: SCIENCE REMAINS BAFFLED

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=30

And you must be familiar with this passage:

Isaiah 44:24-25

King James Version (KJV)

24Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

25That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;

And yes, "knowledge is constantly subject to revision based upon new facts." Knowledge that God wants us to know.

For indeed everything has been planned by our God.

Isaiah 46

8 “Remember this, keep it in mind,

take it to heart, you rebels.

9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;

I am God, and there is no other;

I am God, and there is none like me.

10 I make known the end from the beginning,

from ancient times, what is still to come.

I say, ‘My purpose will stand,

and I will do all that I please.’

11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;

from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.

What I have said, that I will bring about;

what I have planned, that I will do.

Edited June 3, 2011 by betsy

[Tilter]

there is this interesting irony about the wholehearted acceptance of the theory of evolution and the outright rejection of anything that even remotely suggests of a Divine or an Intelligent Designer

Why is it that creationists or 7 day creation believers always demand that the "evolutionists" give proof of anything when ANY part of the creationist theory is based on a book of unproven and mostly proven false fairy tales that has been revised and again revised over the thousands of years of it's predecessors existence. The proof of the fallacy of the book is the numerous "versions" of the bible, rewritten to accommodate the particular religious sect's beliefs. If it were a TRUE "document" or whatever the bible could be called, there would be ONE version of it and the same book would be unrevised, word for word the same as the monks originally thought up.

Be honest--- call it the bible fairy tales the same as Aesop called his book of fairy tales.

As far as the Facts posted later:

the Bible - on the other hand - knows several facts about the earth, the universe and origin of life long before science did!

All these Biblical declarations pertaining to man and origin, the universe and earth are all proven as facts!

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

FACT: The earth is round.

FACT: There is an incalculable number of stars.

FACT: Mountains and trenches in the deep blue sea.

FACT: Invisible atoms, the building blocks

FACT: Noah’s Ark and Ship Building

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

FACT: A finished creation.

FACT: The universe is deteriorating

FACT: The Universe Must Have Had a Beginning

FACT:: Existence of ocean currents

FACT: SCIENCE REMAINS BAFFLED!

FACT: EXPANDING UNIVERSE

FACT: Hydrological Cycle or Water Cycle

FACT: PROPHECIES HAVE COME TRUE!

FACT:

EXPANDING UNIVERSE: Science uses the word, "STRETCHING/STRETCHES/STRETCHED!”

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

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

FACT: BLOOD – THE RIVER OF LIFE

FACT: RODINIA and PANTHALASSA, One land and one ocean!

---------------------

Concentrating on these incredible Biblical facts alone, how do you explain this other than the One who gave these information has to be the Creator/Designer!

FACT: EXPANDING UNIVERSE

FACT:

EXPANDING UNIVERSE: Science uses the word, "STRETCHING/STRETCHES/STRETCHED!”

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

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

FACT: BLOOD – THE RIVER OF LIFE

FACT: RODINIA and PANTHALASSA, One land and one ocean!

there is an old saying--- Likely as old as the bible--- If you throw enuf shit against the wall some of it will stick.

AND

if these "facts" are all in the bible why were so many early "christians" killed, maimed and ostracized (Galileo) for believing and professing them as scientific facts?

Edited June 3, 2011 by Tilter

[DogOnPorch]

It doesn't count unless you create reply after reply of cut and paste jobs with large fonts and bold text.

'Winning' an an argument with a Young Earth Creationist like betsy here is like 'winning' an argument with a 9-11 Troother. Impossible. They simply widen the conspiracy to include any evidence. But, since it is unlikely that her carrying-on will change anyone with a rational brain, there's no real damage done. Personally, I think folks like betsy and her silly ideas are here to amuse those who know better.

DOP: So Jesus rode a Velociraptor? That's just amazing!

betsy: A T-Rex was at the Last Supper.

DOP: I suppose Muhammad flew a pterodactyl from Mecca to Jerusalem.

betsy: Who?

Edited June 3, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[cybercoma]

Ok the pterodactyl comment is hilarious.

...who?

haha, nice!

Edited June 3, 2011 by cybercoma

[DogOnPorch]

Ok the pterodactyl comment is hilarious.

...who?

haha, nice!

Thanks.

[segnosaur]

Re: The Largest Wooden ship, compared to the ark...

Counting the extra wooden beam at the front of the ship is kind of like claiming that a creationist is 7 feet tall because they're wearing a 2 foot tall dunce cap.

Of course. That's why I didn't nitpick and only copy and pasted info from the net.

In that case I don't quite understand.

I had assumed you were being honest when you suggested that there had been ships built "as big as the ark". (I hadn't remembered seeing any postings from you in this thread, so I wasn't sure what opinions you held.)

If you made your post as "sarcasm" (mocking the way betsy spams this board with information she doesn't understand herself) then the sarcasm got lost in the inter-tubes.

Edited June 3, 2011 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

Actually I'm not accepting or rejecting any interpretation.

The point is... once you have a book where you have to do any interpretation, then that book is no longer "indisputable", as it now based in part on the ideals of the interpreter rather than the author.

Why is it "indisputable" if it's interpreted out of context?

But I'm not taking anything "out of context".

You see, you are stuck in a circular loop... you assume "the bible is 100% correct/accurate/perfect", and so whenever someone points out a flaw in the bible (such as contradictions), you stick your fingers in your ears, shout "la la la I can't hear you". And then since you are ignoring any problems in the bible, it reaffirms your false assumption that the "bible is perfect".

Not all are stupid to not see where one makes an error or one makes a more logical interpretation.

You see, this is why you fail. And fail badly.

You yourself admit that there are other interpretations. Yet you claim yours is correct because its "more logical". I didn't claim any one interpretation was more logical than another, I just claimed that other interpretations existed. And when you're dealing with a book that features a talking snake, claims that bats are birds, and can't even be consistent in stating the order of creation, logic is something that doesn't really account for much.

Ummm.... so? I never used Acts 15 when I was pointing out contradictions in gods law!!!!.

It's part of the explanation of the subject being discussed - Mosaic Law!

Nope. It was a different section of the bible, involved different characters in different circumstances. There is no way to know whether the authors were making the same references or were not.

All these things you claim to be inconsistent....cite exact passages so I won't think you're just pulling things out thin air!

I already did. Yet you ignored them. Why exactly is that? Oh, that's right. Because the way you deal with problems is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la! I can't hear you!".

From post 125 (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=180&p=675297entry675297)

Matthew 27: Judas hung himself. Acts 1: he tripped and fell, "bursting asunder"

Genisis 1: God creates animals first, then man. Geneis 2: God creates man first, then animals. You'd figure he'd be able to keep the order of creation straight.

Luke 3: The paternal grandfather of Jebus is Heli. Matthew 1: The paternal grandfather is Jacob. (Hey, maybe they had same sex marriage in those days, and Joseph had 2 gay dads.)

No. I am trying to show consistency and credibility to what I was trying to explain!

No, you were cherry picking arguments and ignoring anything that contradicted your beliefs.

Foundations of the hills was mentioned right after earthquakes....so yes that was a different "foundation." That's the kind of foundation you meant.

But "foundations of the world" being shown was mentioned along with God's rebuke! So to me, that's about moral grounds. Anyway, that's how I interpreted it.

Ummm... no... the passage mentioned the "blast from god's nostrils"... something physical. (You do realize that wind is something that can be observed.)

And don't you think that if you were right (you're not by the way), that its a little strange that the author is using foundation in two different contexts within a couple of sentences of each other? Hey look! Here it means a physical foundation! Oh, but a couple of lines later it means "moral foundation"! Sounds like the author was really bad at explaining himself.

Ummmm... that doesn't necessarily help your case at all. After all, the bible is specific that Jebus is "showed" the kingdoms of the world. If things are too far away to actually see, then the bible is lying when Jebus was "shown".

So indeed He was shown. Supernaturally.

I see. So jebus had super power vision. Did he also have laser vision like superman?

If he had this "supernatural vision", then why did he need to bring him to the "top of the mountain"?

Of course, there's also Daniel 4, which describes a tree "height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth". So, such a tree is visible everywhere on earth, and not one mention is made of jebus with is super-powered vision in that passage.

If not supernatural, then what else?

Well, you made the claim that it (the ability to see "all the kingdoms from the mountain") was possibly a "figure of speech". But if you're going to assume parts of the bible are metaphors, then how do you know all of it isn't a big metaphor?

Now, once I pointed out the failure of your argument, you run away and suggest Jebus had super-vision.

Pardon me, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that everything in the Bible should be taken literally!

Yet you've been spamming this board almost non-stop with junk that suggests we should believe it when it comes to genesis, the flood, etc.

And once again, if you don't think the bible should be taken literally, then how do you determine what is literal and what is a metaphor?

What I've said is that: we must not change or add any words in the Bible, since Christ had said so.

Except jebus wasn't around when the bible was written. It was cobbled together years after his supposed death, and the selection of what books to include was basically done by committee.

Actually, that doesn't exactly help your case any.

In all of human existence there have been approximately 100-115 billion humans. (And this is assuming evolution is correct! If you believe creationism there would have been fewer.) Even if every one of these is a "descendant of abraham" (actually only a tiny fraction would be...) the lord has only gave Abraham 0.0000000000033% of the descendents that he promised (assuming he promised him as many descendants as "stars in the sky"). And if you look at the percentage of the population that's actually Jewish, you're talking 0.000000000000067%.

Even if you consider future generations, there will not be enough time to have "300 sextillion" descendents of Abraham before the sun goes red-giant and wipes out everyone on earth.

Actually when I read your argument about the Mountains and the trenches....that really mess up all your cases!

I get it... so when you're shown yet another case where the bible is not consistent with real life observations, you once again stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la! I'm not listening".

Ummm... you do realize that boats have these inventions called anchors, don't you?

Do you really think a sailor would be too dumb to notice "Hey, if I drop my anchor here it hits the ocean bottom, but if I drop it over there it doesn't. Maybe its because the ocean floor isn't flat!"

And I couldn't believe you're really serious about that!

The fact that your only response is to issue a flippant remark shows how poorly you can actually think for yourself.

So what DO you think ancient sailors might assume if they can't find the ocean floor in some areas but they can in others? Do you think they assumed there were sea monsters grabbing their anchors?

And here's a thought... if you don't want to be seen as a mindless "cut and paste" bot incapable of actually thinking, then perhaps you should stop making the majority of your posts to be mindless cut and paste jobs. Seriously, why exactly should we respect your intellect when you knowingly steal the majority of the stuff you post?

I've given cut and paste where appropriate...

No, you haven't.

Sections that you cut and paste should be used to support your arguments. It shouldn't actually be your argument.

Furthermore, in my long replies to you....I've also inserted my own views...which apparently you have failed to notice or not bothered to read, or....being dishonest about.

Really? Where did you address the contradictions in the order of creation? Or in the paternal grandfather of jebus?

Where did you address the fact that the bible got certain basic facts wrong (like claiming rabbits chew their cud, or that mustard plants have the smallest seed)? I made that post a long time ago... you had plenty of time to address those points. But you didn't.

Yeah, you did address the whole "flat earth" thing... but you did so by claiming jebus had super-vision. Yeah, that's not going to mean too much to us.

You guys really hate my sources.

No, we really hate the fact that you do a cut-and-paste spamming from those sources, without ever actually taking the effort to understand anything resembling real science, and without ever addressing real issues that were brought up in post 195.

Must mean I've got excellent sources....since the opponents want them gone! Meaning: my sources are credible. Hard to rebutt.

Nope, we just want you to actually debate like a reasonable logical thinking person, not like some cut and paste spambot.

As for having sources to back your claims up....read the forum guidelines. They actually encourage that for effective discourse! I identified and gave proper credits to my source(s)....so nothing was stolen.

I did read the guidelines. It specifically mentions "Copyright infringement is illegal on these forums.".

The rules of copyright allow only short sections to be posted. Even if you're not posting an entire article, posting more than a few sentences is considered infringing on copyright.

Oh, and by the way, just so you know... I have actually did searches on some of your postings and found that you have copied information from sources without giving proper attribution.

Edited to add: Oh, one more think, the guidelines also state that you are required to provide a through summary for others. Something you often fail to do.

Segnasaur, I am in this forum hoping for some mature and honest discussion....not some drag-down insult-fest brawl which demeans not only us, but also the board.

No, you came to this forum to spam it with a constant stream of cut-and-paste, from web sites that have as feeble grasp of science as you do. And when you post things that science has debunked long ago, and people don't respond to it, you'll dance away thinking "Hey I must be on to something"!!!!

Here's a suggestion... educate yourself. Get a REAL education. Quit reading all those creationist web sites and try to actually, you know, find people who are credible in the scientific community to follow.

You (and a few names) seem to be bent on this kind of interaction. I don't intend to be part of it.

Who cares what you want to be a part of?

Your postings are pointless. In terms of copyright law, you're a thief. Your attempts at "interaction" have basically involved ignoring arguments that debunk your claims and issuing flippant remarks. You add absolutely no value to any conversation.

I do not respond to your posts because you have anything valuable to say. I respond to them because there may be others who could be swayed by your spamming, and wanted to illustrate to them just how flawed your arguments are.

Edited June 3, 2011 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

With all the hoaxes, frauds, unsbstantiated and counter-factual claims being made for the theory of evolution.....what else is falsehood that haven't been exposed?

With these shady and very un-scientific conducts by so-called men of science - therefore that puts question to the validity of everything that has been presented so far. It is safe to conlude then that the Theory of Evolution is based on nothing!

It is actually proving to be the myth!

Ummm... just so you know... even though there have been frauds/mistakes in science, those errors tend to get uncovered by, guess what... science. Science is self-correcting.

And while there may have been frauds/mistakes, there is still plenty of evidence that still points to evolution being the proper explanation for change and diversification of life on earth. Any such "frauds" have composed only a tiny fraction of the evidence that has been found.

So, Hovind is one of the well known proponents of "biblical creationism". He's now in jail for income tax fraud. So does that mean you're going to discount all of creationism as a result?

[betsy]

Why is it that creationists or 7 day creation believers always demand that the "evolutionists" give proof of anything when ANY part of the creationist theory is based on a book of unproven and mostly proven false fairy tales that has been revised and again revised over the thousands of years of it's predecessors existence. The proof of the fallacy of the book is the numerous "versions" of the bible, rewritten to accommodate the particular religious sect's beliefs. If it were a TRUE "document" or whatever the bible could be called, there would be ONE version of it and the same book would be unrevised, word for word the same as the monks originally thought up.

Be honest--- call it the bible fairy tales the same as Aesop called his book of fairy tales.

What's several version got to do with the facts listed here? Just because there are several versions proves it's therefore fallacy?

What? The dictionary has a lot of versions! Therefore it's all fallacy?

If you want to prove the Bible's fallacy, then you tackle the Biblical declarations that's been proven true by science. Because those are the arguments being presented here. Focus.

Never mind the number of versions - just the facts, sir. Just deal with the facts.

As far as the Facts posted later:

there is an old saying--- Likely as old as the bible--- If you throw enuf shit against the wall some of it will stick.

AND

Are you saying the fonts cloud the thinking mind? I could understand children getting all excited by bright colors....but we're all adults here, are we not?

If I post this several times....

Sample: Fact: The world is shaped like a triangle!

Are you saying everyone who reads will eventually believe it? Just because it's been posted several times?

What I know is that.....someone who avidly follows and keeps reading popular science rags or anything written by Dawkins, will not only believe everything Dawkins say, he'll also talk the way Dawkins does! He'll be parroting all the derogatory statements he has about religion - specially Christianity!

Furthermore, he'll be intoning and chanting scientific claims - most, if not all of them, unsubstantiated!

Not even any cut-and-paste! And he''ll pompously expect you to take his word for it!

Tell you what, why don't you post your rebuttals against the facts listed here the same way, font-wise.

You can rebutt the sample given above like this:

Fact: The earth is not Bermuda! No way! It is round!

(Then have something to back up that claim)

Don't rebutt so boldly....only to give a disappointing pfffffft.

if these "facts" are all in the bible why were so many early "christians" killed, maimed and ostracized (Galileo) for believing and professing them as scientific facts?

Never mind Galileo's past. Focus please. Just answer this:

Are you saying all the facts I've listed are not scientifically true?

Edited June 3, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

So, Hovind is one of the well known proponents of "biblical creationism". He's now in jail for income tax fraud. So does that mean you're going to discount all of creationism as a result?

Touche' Well played, sir.

However...Kent did make some pretty funny YouTube vids.

[DogOnPorch]

Still waiting for the answer re: why Noah decided to kill all the dinosaurs...including those immune to flooding.

Will I get a rational answer...or will it be el-banana?

[segnosaur]

If you want to prove the Bible's fallacy, then you tackle the Biblical declarations that's been proven true by science. Because those are the arguments being presented here.

Your argument fails.

The fact that some things appearing in the bible are true does not mean that all parts of the bible are true. (After all, Harry Potter mentions the town of London, yet the fact that it is accurate in mentioning a real life place does not mean that we should be believing in flying broomsticks and magic wands.

Of course, I'd also doubt all your claims of "biblical declarations that have been proven true". Given the fact that you tend to cut-and-paste/spam from creationist web sites (who themselves have a pretty poor grasp at science) your claims of "biblical declarations proven true" is rather... questionable.

[segnosaur]

Still waiting for the answer re: why Noah decided to kill all the dinosaurs...including those immune to flooding.

Will I get a rational answer...or will it be el-banana?

And hey, I'm still waiting to hear about who on Noah's ark had AIDS, Herpes, Syphalis, Small Pox, Polio, and a whole host of other diseases.

[betsy]

But I'm not taking anything "out of context".

You see, you are stuck in a circular loop... you assume "the bible is 100% correct/accurate/perfect", and so whenever someone points out a flaw in the bible (such as contradictions), you stick your fingers in your ears, shout "la la la I can't hear you". And then since you are ignoring any problems in the bible, it reaffirms your false assumption that the "bible is perfect".

You see, this is why you fail. And fail badly.

You yourself admit that there are other interpretations. Yet you claim yours is correct because its "more logical". I didn't claim any one interpretation was more logical than another, I just claimed that other interpretations existed. And when you're dealing with a book that features a talking snake, claims that bats are birds, and can't even be consistent in stating the order of creation, logic is something that doesn't really account for much.

Nope. It was a different section of the bible, involved different characters in different circumstances. There is no way to know whether the authors were making the same references or were not.

I already did. Yet you ignored them. Why exactly is that? Oh, that's right. Because the way you deal with problems is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la! I can't hear you!".

From post 125 (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=180&p=675297entry675297)

Matthew 27: Judas hung himself. Acts 1: he tripped and fell, "bursting asunder"

Genisis 1: God creates animals first, then man. Geneis 2: God creates man first, then animals. You'd figure he'd be able to keep the order of creation straight.

Luke 3: The paternal grandfather of Jebus is Heli. Matthew 1: The paternal grandfather is Jacob. (Hey, maybe they had same sex marriage in those days, and Joseph had 2 gay dads.)

No, you were cherry picking arguments and ignoring anything that contradicted your beliefs.

Ummm... no... the passage mentioned the "blast from god's nostrils"... something physical. (You do realize that wind is something that can be observed.)

And don't you think that if you were right (you're not by the way), that its a little strange that the author is using foundation in two different contexts within a couple of sentences of each other? Hey look! Here it means a physical foundation! Oh, but a couple of lines later it means "moral foundation"! Sounds like the author was really bad at explaining himself.

I see. So jebus had super power vision. Did he also have laser vision like superman?

If he had this "supernatural vision", then why did he need to bring him to the "top of the mountain"?

Of course, there's also Daniel 4, which describes a tree "height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth". So, such a tree is visible everywhere on earth, and not one mention is made of jebus with is super-powered vision in that passage.

Well, you made the claim that it (the ability to see "all the kingdoms from the mountain") was possibly a "figure of speech". But if you're going to assume parts of the bible are metaphors, then how do you know all of it isn't a big metaphor?

Now, once I pointed out the failure of your argument, you run away and suggest Jebus had super-vision.

Yet you've been spamming this board almost non-stop with junk that suggests we should believe it when it comes to genesis, the flood, etc.

And once again, if you don't think the bible should be taken literally, then how do you determine what is literal and what is a metaphor?

Except jebus wasn't around when the bible was written. It was cobbled together years after his supposed death, and the selection of what books to include was basically done by committee.

I get it... so when you're shown yet another case where the bible is not consistent with real life observations, you once again stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la! I'm not listening".

The fact that your only response is to issue a flippant remark shows how poorly you can actually think for yourself.

So what DO you think ancient sailors might assume if they can't find the ocean floor in some areas but they can in others? Do you think they assumed there were sea monsters grabbing their anchors?

No, you haven't.

Sections that you cut and paste should be used to support your arguments. It shouldn't actually be your argument.

Really? Where did you address the contradictions in the order of creation? Or in the paternal grandfather of jebus?

Where did you address the fact that the bible got certain basic facts wrong (like claiming rabbits chew their cud, or that mustard plants have the smallest seed)? I made that post a long time ago... you had plenty of time to address those points. But you didn't.

Yeah, you did address the whole "flat earth" thing... but you did so by claiming jebus had super-vision. Yeah, that's not going to mean too much to us.

No, we really hate the fact that you do a cut-and-paste spamming from those sources, without ever actually taking the effort to understand anything resembling real science, and without ever addressing real issues that were brought up in post 195.

Nope, we just want you to actually debate like a reasonable logical thinking person, not like some cut and paste spambot.

I did read the guidelines. It specifically mentions "Copyright infringement is illegal on these forums.".

The rules of copyright allow only short sections to be posted. Even if you're not posting an entire article, posting more than a few sentences is considered infringing on copyright.

Oh, and by the way, just so you know... I have actually did searches on some of your postings and found that you have copied information from sources without giving proper attribution.

Edited to add: Oh, one more think, the guidelines also state that you are required to provide a through summary for others. Something you often fail to do.

No, you came to this forum to spam it with a constant stream of cut-and-paste, from web sites that have as feeble grasp of science as you do. And when you post things that science has debunked long ago, and people don't respond to it, you'll dance away thinking "Hey I must be on to something"!!!!

Here's a suggestion... educate yourself. Get a REAL education. Quit reading all those creationist web sites and try to actually, you know, find people who are credible in the scientific community to follow.

Who cares what you want to be a part of?

Your postings are pointless. In terms of copyright law, you're a thief. Your attempts at "interaction" have basically involved ignoring arguments that debunk your claims and issuing flippant remarks. You add absolutely no value to any conversation.

I do not respond to your posts because you have anything valuable to say. I respond to them because there may be others who could be swayed by your spamming, and wanted to illustrate to them just how flawed your arguments are.

Just answer this.

Are you saying all the big bold facts I've listed here on this topic are not scientifically true?

If you say they're not, then support your claim!

Edited June 3, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

And hey, I'm still waiting to hear about who on Noah's ark had AIDS, Herpes, Syphalis, Small Pox, Polio, and a whole host of other diseases.

Another good point. That must have been one hell of a Carnival Cruise. I wonder who got to deal with the....errr...animal waste?

[segnosaur]

Yes, He formed them out of the ground. According to their own kind.

Please explain what a 'kind' is.

Is a 'kind' a species? Is it a genus? Are dogs/wolves the same 'kind'? What's the "scientific" definition of a "kind"?

And please, give your explanation without resorting to massive cut-and-paste. Do so in your own words.

(My prediction: She won't be able to provide any sort of real explanation for 'kind')

Yes there is micro-evolution....evolution in a smaller scale within the specie (usually for adaptation).

There is no debate about that.

But clearly God is emphasizing in these Genesis passages that there is no macro-evolution.

So, what exactly is the difference? Just how much "micro-evolution" is allowed? And by what mechanism does successive "micro-evolution" changes not result in a distinct species substantially different from its distant ancestors? What are the limiting factors?

And again, give your explanation without resorting to massive cut-and-paste. Do so in your own words.

[jbg]

First, I'm just curious....why do you refer to God as "G-d?"

Spelling out the name is a Commandment violation. You won't see me spelling it out.

I don't think men of faith are denying the power of the human mind to reason, after all that is God-given too. It's one of those qualities that separates man from the other creations of God (such as the land animals, the sea creatures, birds and plants!)

My point is that we can take such miracle stories as Creation and parting of the Red Sea at less than face value and still be people of faith. I think we both are.

And no, we do not know anything about the chain of evolution! What we do know is that evolutionist scientists are trying everything to come up with new theories, including fraud/hoaxes/lies, to fill in the gaps in order to fit their idea of origin!

Will you concede that man is more closely related to chimpanzees than bullfrogs?

See discussion of 1983 Public Broadcasting Service debate on creationism, link, excerpts below:

Gish has been caught on numerous occasions spouting lies, yet he never offers retractions and his own religion tells him that he should be honest.

One example is Gish's "bullfrog proteins." In 1983, in a PBS show on creationism, Gish claimed that while humans and chimpanzees have many proteins which are identical or differ by only a few amino acids, there are also human proteins which are more similar to a bullfrog or a chicken than to chimpanzees. Gish was repeatedly pressed to produce his evidence. Two years later, Philip Kitcher challenged Gish to produce his evidence or retract his claim in a debate at the University of Minnesota. Gish refused to respond. Kevin Wirth of Students for Origins Research (a pro-creationist organization) begged Gish to respond in the pages of Origins Research regarding the claim. He refused. (See Robert Schadewald, "Scientific Creationism and Error," Creation/Evolution XVII (vol. 6, no. 1, 1986).)

As I've said before, if science and reputed scientists like Dawkins, can go to far lengths as to commit fraud/hoaxes/misleading and unsubstantiated claims, if they can lie about some things, why can't they not lie about everything? How do you sift lies from facts?

Seems creationists have their own whoppers as well. See above.

Jbg, the big problem with macro-evolution is that, not only does it have no valid evidence at all that it exists, but that it is supposed to prove to you that there is no God!

Can people believe both in G-d and in evolution? I do.

That your Bible is nothing more than a mythological book.

It's a good, mostly valid oral history. Not infallible but more true than not.

[DogOnPorch]

There were no such things as wild dachshunds. If discovered today in the wild, it would be given its own slot in the Canidae family.

[segnosaur]

There were no such things as wild dachshunds. If discovered today in the wild, it would be given its own slot in the Canidae family.

Actually, dachshunds probably wouldn't exist in the wild anyways. Nature tends not to favor "extremes" (such as short legs) unless there is selective pressure. So if we let natural breeding take place, dachshunds would disappear. (They only exist because we keep breeding them that way.)

The only way they could exist is if they became isolated in a population, and through genetic drift became a separate species. Then they would deserve their own slot in the Canidae family.

[betsy]

Seems creationists have their own whoppers as well. See above.

But I'm not debating the honesty of all Creationists in this topic.

I am presenting the Biblical declarations that have been proven true by science.

The glaring Biblical scientific facts - especially the ones pertaining to origin - that only the Creator/Designer would know.

[betsy]

Still waiting for the answer re: why Noah decided to kill all the dinosaurs...including those immune to flooding.

Will I get a rational answer...or will it be el-banana?

You haven't been answering my questions, why should it only be a one-way-street?

So yeah, here's a banana. Now, be happy.

[betsy]

Your argument fails.

The fact that some things appearing in the bible are true does not mean that all parts of the bible are true. (After all, Harry Potter mentions the town of London, yet the fact that it is accurate in mentioning a real life place does not mean that we should be believing in flying broomsticks and magic wands.

Hah! Several dead-on Biblical facts and you dismiss them....yet you want to sell me macro-evolution - riddled with hoaxes/frauds/unsubstantiated and counter-factual claims - and with not a single valid evidence to boot! Nice try!

Of course, I'd also doubt all your claims of "biblical declarations that have been proven true". Given the fact that you tend to cut-and-paste/spam from creationist web sites (who themselves have a pretty poor grasp at science) your claims of "biblical declarations proven true" is rather... questionable.

The universe is not expressed in Time, Space, Matter and Energy?

The universe is not deteriorating?

No mountains and deep trenches in the deep blue ocean?

The universe is not expanding...er excuse me....I mean...streeeeeetching?

There's no curvature of space?

Our body is not made with things that's found in the ground?

Blood is not the "river of life?"

There was no one single super continent called Rodinia, and one single ocean called Panthalassa in the beginning?

The earth is not round?

Hydrocycle is not true?

Sanitary practices, disease prevention and public health instructions given here are not true?

You don't agree with science?