The Bible

[segnosaur]

(Long debunking of betsy cut, because she was unwilling and/or unable to deal with it.)

Just answer this.

You're actually asking me a question?

First of all, in your previous post you said "bye". Sounded pretty final to me.

Secondly, its a bit rude to go around asking me questions, when multiple issues that I addressed to YOU have gone unaddressed.

But then, I guess that's par for the course. However, being the better man than you, I will address your question...

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

Well, where to being? You've been spamming this board so much that its hard to know where to being.

Your "facts" fall into several categories.

Things that are wrong.

Examples:

- The claim that "stars are incalculable". They aren't. Astronomers have calculated the number to be in the order of 10^21

- Prophesies have come true. No, they haven't. Any "prophesies" are so vague that they can be applied to multiple events (or they only have the bible as proof... which isn't exactly "proof" of anything)

Stuff that's correct but doesn't mean much (kind of like the mention of the city of London in the Harry Potter books... it might be true, but its hardly "proof" of anything special)

Examples:

- Mountains and trenches in the sea. That's something that would likely be obvious to any sailors of the day

- Existence of ocean currents. Again, something that would probably be obvious to any sailors of the day

- Water Cycle. I'm sure pretty much everyone back then knew that moisture disappeared into the air, and that rain came down

Stuff that's a coincidence

Examples:

- Universe has a beginning. Pretty much every religion has creation myths. So what? There's nothing in the bible that supports any of the other scientific observations, such as red shifts, etc.

Misleading claims

Examples:

- All of the famous scientists that were "creationists". Misleading because most of those names came from a time prior to the establishment of evolutionary theory (And, as I pointed before, if you assume being famous makes you correct, then I should point out that Newton believed in both creation AND alchemy. That does not mean we can turn lead to gold.

Stuff that's contradicted:

Examples:

- Earth is round (but then there are multiple parts in the bible that suggest the earth is flat, and its only through invoking super-jebus that you can explain it away)

Stuff that's just bat-sh*t insane

Examples:

- Finished creation. In the bible, god creates the stars. Yet astronomers know that new stars are being created all the time. You were suggesting "god does not create new matter", but stars are distinct objects. They're specifically mentioned in the bible as being created in genesis. But we know stars are being created now.

- Science remains baffeled. Not sure how this is supported by the bible.

- Noah received the dimensions of the ark... And so? What's that supposed to prove? What is the scientific merit of that? We've never found evidence of a wooden ship anywhere near the size suggested

Now that I've dealt with your question, why don't you try addressing the issues I raised? (Oh, and do so in your own words, without resorting to cutting and pasting):

- who on Noah's ark had AIDS? Who had herpes? Who had Ebola? Or one of any number of diseases?

- If there was a global flood, how did the fish survive? After all, most species of fish have very specific salinity requirements. A massive flood is going to make the water far less salty and probably kill most of the fresh water species

- What is your scientific definition of a "kind"?

- Why is micro-evolution acceptable but not macro-evolution? What is limiting micro-evolution to prevent large-scale changes?

- Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give different paternal grandparents for jebus?

- Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2?

- Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different method of death for Judas?

- Why does jebus (the "son of god, the creator of everything) not know that the mustard seed is not the smallest?

- Why does the bible not know that rabbits do not chew their own cud?

Edited June 3, 2011 by segnosaur

[betsy]

I just only read this part, and boy....

Who cares what you want to be a part of?

I said I didn't want to be part of a name-calling, insult-hurling brawl! And you don't care that I said that?

Therefore you're really keen to take this dsicussion down to the gutter!

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.

Like these name-callings!

You are deceitful in your attempt at discussion. Then it is indeed pointless to even try.

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.

Then you don't have to respond at my posts, for I have no further intentions of responding to you. You don't want me to give articles and sources that supports my arguments simply because you cannot offer anything substantial to back your claims! You think we're spitting wind in the bar here? You want me to be like you?

Good day, sir. Farewell.

Edited June 4, 2011 by betsy

[segnosaur]

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

Dear kettle...

I would like to make a particular observation regarding your color.

- Signed: The pot

Perhaps if you're going to complain about people "not answering questions", perhaps you should deal with some of the issues you've left outstanding. Such as the scientific problems with the flood (e.g. diseases requiring a host). Or the rather obvious contradictions I pointed out (Ancestors of Jebus, death of Judas, etc.)

[DogOnPorch]

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.

Oh yes...I'm just using the creature itself as an example. This in no way says they'd happen via natural selection...unless they lived on rabbit world, perhaps.

[segnosaur]

I said I didn't want to be part of a name-calling, insult-hurling brawl! And you don't care that I said that?

If you don't want to be called a "spam bot", then stop posting information you find on the web, over and over again.

If you don't want to be called a thief, then stop breaking copyright law.

Therefore you're really keen to take this dsicussion down to the gutter!

I see no need to play "nice" with someone who abuses the rules of the forum, breaks copyright laws, and is unwilling to address issues that are brought before them.

You are deceitful in your attempt at discussion. Then it is indeed pointless to even try.

Nope, I'm not deceitful. I may be rude, insulting, and condescending, but I make an attempt to address the major issues that are brought forward (within of course my own personal time constraints). Furthermore, I actually make an attempt to learn about the issues I've posted so I can make statements in my own words, rather than cut-and-pasting from some other source.

Then you don't have to respond at my posts, for I have further intentions of responding to you.

Yet nowhere in this thread have you explained who on Noah's ark had aids, or how saltwater fish would have survived the decrease in salinity brought about by the flood, or why jebus had 2 different paternal grandparents, or why the bible was wrong about rabbits chewing their cud.

So, what exactly is the value of your "responses"?

You don't want me to give articles and sources that supports my arguments...

I have no problem with you providing articles/sources. I do wish they were from a more reputable source. (Believe it or not, creationists web sites are not always the most informed when it comes to science.)

What I do have a problem with is the way you cut-and-paste from sources, in some cases breaking copyright law (which makes you a thief by the way), without doing any of your own analysis.

Oh, and I dislike the way you tend to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la I'm not listening" whenever an issue is raised that debunks your claims.

...simply because you cannot offer anything substantial to back your claims! You think we're spitting wind in the bar here? You want me to be like you?

Be like me? You mean someone who doesn't spam the forum with a whole bunch of articles cut and pasted from web sites with questionable scientific credentials? Yes please! Be like me!

I post references when they are necessary. The fact is, most of your "arguments" are so bogus that they can be debunked without ever referring to any outside sources. (For example, I do not need to refer to any outside source when I point to the fact that the bible gives 2 different orders of creation. After all, its all right there in the bible.)

[DogOnPorch]

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.

You aren't really ASKING questions. You're just stating your 'facts' which have been challenged.

Well...why did Noah kill-off the dinosaurs?

I assume in order to believe that dinos and man actually lived together, this eliminates the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of Earth's history (as well as all the others)...since they'd all have to have been 'created' at the same time.

This leads me to the other question 'Young Earth Creationists' like yourself hate to answer:

What about stellar metallicity? Our star and our planet were born out of the remnants of other long dead exploded stars...your Bible tales have the Earth being 'created' before the first star. Not possible.

Edited June 3, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[segnosaur]

What about stellar metallicity? Our star and our planet were born out of the remnants of other long dead exploded stars...your Bible tales have the Earth being 'created' before the first star. Not possible.

Not to mention the other issue I raised earlier...

Genesis has god creating the stars on the "Fourth day". Did he create all the stars? Because astronomers pretty much observed the creation of new stars/planetary systems that started long after the earth was created.

[DogOnPorch]

Not to mention the other issue I raised earlier...

Genesis has god creating the stars on the "Fourth day". Did he create all the stars? Because astronomers pretty much observed the creation of new stars/planetary systems that started long after the earth was created.

Yes...Creationists hate that one, too. New stars and planets are being formed as we chat...why is God hitting 'New Game'?

[segnosaur]

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!

First of all, everyone should note that once again, besty did NOT address the main point... that the existence of one or more "facts" in any work of literature is not evidence that the entire book should be considered factual. Instead of attempting to address that logic (she can't) she instead attempts to change the subject, to divert the issue by attempting to smear science.

Secondly, notice that once again, she has ignored the fact that while science may have had problems, so has creationism. Say hello to Hovind. He's in jail. He was also a creationist.

Lastly, she makes the rather false claim that there's "not a single valid evidence". That is a lie. The fact is, there is a mountain of evidence, both regarding evolution, and the development of our universe as a whole. (Everything from astronomical observations, genetics, geology, radiometric physics, etc.)

While she almost urinates with excitement over her "fraudulent" Archeoraptor, she completely ignores the multiple fossils of Archaeoptryx, the genetic analysis of T-rex material, and the observations of feathered quill nobs on the skeletons of velociraptors, none of which has been shown to be fradulant, and all of which support the idea of the descent of birds from dinosaurs.

[DogOnPorch]

Watch a crow plucking worms from dewy grass...dinosaur.

[segnosaur]

Yes...Creationists hate that one, too. New stars and planets are being formed as we chat...why is God hitting 'New Game'?

Wonder if she'd be more convinced if we did like she did... cut-and-paste long rambling passages from sources (doing so illegally I might add), without actually adding any of our own material?

[DogOnPorch]

Wonder if she'd be more convinced if we did like she did... cut-and-paste long rambling passages from sources (doing so illegally I might add), without actually adding any of our own material?

To be fair...that's all she has. Creationists can't actually win an over the table discussion re: Evolution vs Creationism....they drag out the ol' "faith" card, eventually. Or, as mentioned, simply claim your scientific proof of something is their proof of a god.

What must be really irksome, though, is that evolution is beautiful in its basic simplicity...like perhaps You-Know-Who-Upstairs 'created it'...but then we humans would no longer be special in the sense that we are living gods. That must fry a few brain-cells every time they think about it...lol.

Edited June 3, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[segnosaur]

Watch a crow plucking worms from dewy grass...dinosaur.

Of course, we should be fair and point out that we're not sure of all the details regarding Avian origins. The evidence points to them being related, but exactly when they "split off" is unknown, as is the origin of the mechanism of flight.

Over time I'm sure science will fill in the gaps. Until then we can come up with hypotheses.

To be fair...that's all she has. Creationists can't actually win an over the table discussion re: Evolution vs Creationism....they drag out the ol' "faith" card, eventually. Or, as mentioned, simply claim your scientific proof of something is their proof of a god.

Or, they engage in the "galloping Gish" (which looks a little like what she is doing here).

A "Gish gallop" refers to creationist Duane Gish, who developed a method of "debate" whereby he would present a large number of half-truths, lies and distortions. Each of them is easy to debunk on their own, but when inundated with multiple arguments concurrently, it becomes harder for the debunker to address false claim properly. As a result, the creationist ends up happy that they managed to "win" not by presenting clear and reasonable arguments, but by drowning their opponent in bull cr*p.

Betsy has made over a dozen "claims" here. None were in her own words (thus she required no effort or brain power to actually make the claim). Instead of trying to handle any of the responses, on she gallops, with yet more cut-and-paste.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[DogOnPorch]

Or, they engage in the "galloping Gish" (which looks a little like what she is doing here).

Well I'll be damned. (In my best Beavis)

Figures it has its own Wikipedia page.

[cybercoma]

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.

Every domesticated dog in existence can be traced back to the wolf. All of them from Great Danes to Chihuahuas. We know the power of artificial selection, otherwise known as selective breeding of plants and animals. This is evolution. I'm not sure how betsy can even object to that. If artificial selection creates such vast differences in only a few generations, it stands to reason that natural selection over millions of years would create vast differences stemming back to common ancestors at various points. None of this is even controversial or arguable. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. I would challenge betsy to prove otherwise, but she can't. No one has because it's matter of fact at this point. Saying that this process doesn't actually happen or that one doesn't believe in evolution is like saying one doesn't believe that the sky is blue or the grass is green. Rightfully, others ought to think that person colour blind or bat-shit crazy.

[cybercoma]

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.

You ever think maybe you should stop staring at that leaf and start looking at the whole tree?

[betsy]

deleted. double.

Edited June 4, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Regarding the listed fact about

Mountains and trenches in the deep blue sea

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=0

Jonah 2:3-6 (New International version)

3 You hurled me into the depths,

into the very heart of the seas,

and the currents swirled about me;

all your waves and breakers

swept over me.

4 I said, ‘I have been banished

from your sight;

yet I will look again

toward your holy temple.’

5 The engulfing waters threatened me,

the deep surrounded me;

seaweed was wrapped around my head.

6 To the roots of the mountains I sank down;

the earth beneath barred me in forever.

Just a little history about the ocean floor lest some of you ends up buying the fanciful yarn of one of the posters here claiming that ancient people must've known about the mountains in the ocean because of their boat "anchors."

This is to enlighten him too because apparently he's dead serious about it!

Ocean floor mapping

About two thirds of the Earth's surface lies beneath the oceans. Before the 19th century, the depths of the open ocean were largely a matter of speculation, and most people thought that the ocean floor was relatively flat and featureless. However, as early as the 16th century, a few intrepid navigators, by taking soundings with hand lines, found that the open ocean can differ considerably in depth, showing that the ocean floor was not as flat as generally believed. Oceanic exploration during the next centuries dramatically improved our knowledge of the ocean floor. We now know that most of the geologic processes occurring on land are linked, directly or indirectly, to the dynamics of the ocean floor.

"Modern" measurements of ocean depths greatly increased in the 19th century, when deep-sea line soundings (bathymetric surveys) were routinely made in the Atlantic and Caribbean. In 1855, a bathymetric chart published by U.S. Navy Lieutenant Matthew Maury revealed the first evidence of underwater mountains in the central Atlantic (which he called "Middle Ground").

In the 1950s, oceanic exploration greatly expanded. Data gathered by oceanographic surveys conducted by many nations led to the discovery that a great mountain range on the ocean floor virtually encircled the Earth.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html

Anchors! Bwa-ha-ha

Edited June 4, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

In 1855, a bathymetric chart published by U.S. Navy Lieutenant Matthew Maury revealed the first evidence of underwater mountains in the central Atlantic (which he called "Middle Ground").

In the 1950s, oceanic exploration greatly expanded. Data gathered by oceanographic surveys conducted by many nations led to the discovery that a great mountain range on the ocean floor virtually encircled the Earth.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html

Let me just point out the appropriate description in the Bible precisely matching what was discovered in 1855. Mountains. Plural form.

And who was it who gave the first evidence of the underwater mountains? The same guy who was inspired by the Bible and discovered the “paths in the seas.” Matthew Maury!

Jonah 2:5-6

5 The engulfing waters threatened me,

the deep surrounded me;

seaweed was wrapped around my head.

6 To the roots of the mountains I sank down;

the earth beneath barred me in forever.

And to think that before the 19th century, people believed the ocean floor was flat! And featureless!

Edited June 4, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

And to think that before the 19th century, people believed the ocean floor was flat! And featureless!

Science is dynamic. If you don't bother to learn about it at all, its shifty boundaries might make it seem that its findings are unpredictable and unreliable. But that's not true. The magic tablet that allows you to send your messages to this miraculous forum is but one piece of evidence that its findings are ultimately very reliable.

[jbg]

Or, they engage in the "galloping Gish" (which looks a little like what she is doing here).

A "Gish gallop" refers to creationist Duane Gish, who developed a method of "debate" whereby he would present a large number of half-truths, lies and distortions. Each of them is easy to debunk on their own, but when inundated with multiple arguments concurrently, it becomes harder for the debunker to address false claim properly. As a result, the creationist ends up happy that they managed to "win" not by presenting clear and reasonable arguments, but by drowning their opponent in bull cr*p.

Betsy has made over a dozen "claims" here. None were in her own words (thus she required no effort or brain power to actually make the claim). Instead of trying to handle any of the responses, on she gallops, with yet more cut-and-paste.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

No fair, I cited Gish (link) just before.

[DogOnPorch]

Jonah 2:3-6 (New International version)

3 You hurled me into the depths,

into the very heart of the seas,

and the currents swirled about me;

all your waves and breakers

swept over me.

4 I said, ‘I have been banished

from your sight;

yet I will look again

toward your holy temple.’

5 The engulfing waters threatened me,

the deep surrounded me;

seaweed was wrapped around my head.

6 To the roots of the mountains I sank down;

the earth beneath barred me in forever.

Just a little history about the ocean floor lest some of you ends up buying the fanciful yarn of one of the posters here claiming that ancient people must've known about the mountains in the ocean because of their boat "anchors."

This is to enlighten him too because apparently he's dead serious about it!

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html

Anchors! Bwa-ha-ha

1. Nobody except you said anything about anchors.

2. Nobody knew about the deep ocean floor before it was mapped (via science).

3. Nobody can survive more than a small distance under water without a pressure suit.

4. Nobody can live three days in a shark's belly.

5. The book of Jonah doesn't really describe anything other than he supposedly went extremely deep...which we again know is impossible...unless you wave some of your magic fairy dust to eliminate certain laws of nature.

6. Ancient sailors were well aware that the oceans had currents and dangerous rocks and shallows.

7. The Bible wasn't written in English...but definitely written by humans.

Edited June 4, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Tilter]

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

2) The universe is not deteriorating?

3) No mountains and deep trenches in the deep blue ocean?

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

5) There's no curvature of space?

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

7) Blood is not the "river of life?"

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

9)The earth is not round?

10) Hydrocycle is not true?

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

1)--- gee yeah I've seen that in the bible many times--- I think in Ludicrous 13.2.8

Get serious, no one in the time of Joshia even heard of the universe, time was as the sun passes the tree branch and space was what the little girls didn't have in the bed qwhen their brothers were trying to get some.

2)-- Yeah--- I can just hear it now as Noah said to his (at least one of his) wives--- hey Rachel--- have you too noticed how the universe is deteriorating? Man, it's just falling apart--- a comet here, a falling star there, who knows what will happen next. Betsy-- yer dreemin in color.

3) now this is the deepest revelation so far-------in 2460 BC them boyz with the SCUBA equipment went trotting around the bases of the undersea mountains every day, digging up trhe odd neptune's pitchfork & the lost anchor from that there big boat Noah Zark made. Revelations 24/7

4) they saw expansion AND deterioration? WOW them boyz had good telescopes

Betsy, as you read thru the pages of that much edited tattered book you must be smoking the wrong kind of tobacco or consuming too many pieces of blotter.

In the next version of the Bercky-Bible they will be predicting the landing on the moon and the crash of the shuttle.

EVERYTHING is easy in hindsight.

[betsy]

Science is dynamic. If you don't bother to learn about it at all, its shifty boundaries might make it seem that its findings are unpredictable and unreliable. But that's not true. The magic tablet that allows you to send your messages to this miraculous forum is but one piece of evidence that its findings are ultimately very reliable.

Science is awesome! TRUE science, that is. The real sincere quest for real knowledge/truth! After all where do all that knowledge comes from? It is reliable. I agree with you on that.

But not pseudo-science. Not the kind of so-called quest for "knowledge" that's been compromised by atheistic bias, by "cover-ups" for the sake of hidden agendas, giving unsubstantiated claims and counter-factual claims, deliberate falsifications of datas, hoaxes and frauds...not that kind of so-called science that's churning out myths.

[betsy]

Jonah 2:3-6 (New International version)

3 You hurled me into the depths,

into the very heart of the seas,

and the currents swirled about me;

all your waves and breakers

swept over me.

4 I said, ‘I have been banished

from your sight;

yet I will look again

toward your holy temple.’

5 The engulfing waters threatened me,

the deep surrounded me;

seaweed was wrapped around my head.

6 To the roots of the mountains I sank down;

the earth beneath barred me in forever.

Just a little history about the ocean floor lest some of you ends up buying the fanciful yarn of one of the posters here claiming that ancient people must've known about the mountains in the ocean because of their boat "anchors."

This is to enlighten him too because apparently he's dead serious about it!

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html

Anchors! Bwa-ha-ha :lol:

1. Nobody except you said anything about anchors.

Then you don't follow the discussion? Or are you being....unfair?

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!"

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=225

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?

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

2. Nobody knew about the deep ocean floor before it was mapped (via science).

Tell that to your buddy.

3. Nobody can survive more than a small distance under water without a pressure suit.

4. Nobody can live three days in a shark's belly.

Well apparently the Book that said all about those scientific facts listed on this topic said he did. Do you have any proof that it didn't happen?

5. The book of Jonah doesn't really describe anything other than he supposedly went extremely deep...

We read what we choose to read. We see what we choose to see. Selective reading. Selective seeing.

which we again know is impossible...unless you wave some of your magic fairy dust to eliminate certain laws of nature.

So far the Book that I'm quoting obviously eliminated some of your laws of nature. It made declarations that were proven scientifically true!

6. Ancient sailors were well aware that the oceans had currents and dangerous rocks and shallows.

But we're talking about the DEEP blue ocean!

7. The Bible wasn't written in English...but definitely written by humans.

So? Have you heard of scholars who meticulously do the translations? They're the HUMAN equivalent of paleontologists or gelologists, etc.., except their expertise is in this field.

Edited June 5, 2011 by betsy