The Bible

[Sleipnir]

Compare with the samples you gave above:

"He is a public critic of intelligent design (ID) and of the creationist movement in general and is an activist in the American creation–evolution controversy. He is widely regarded as a confrontationalist.^[2]"

Conflict of interest, Mighty AC.

Conflict of interest. get it now?

Notice how she is refusing to address the claims made against her?

[betsy]

Ha-ha-ha And Myers is a widely known confrontationalist. Of course he'll disagree with anything!

Haven't you heard the one about the fork in the road?

Two brothers lived in the house at the fork of the road. One guy always tells the truth. The other guy always lies.

[Oh btw, their mother lives with them. She's a confrontationalist.]

Edited November 1, 2012 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Nothing you are saying has anything to do with the arguments that have been made, betsy. Do you care to address the arguments, rather than the person?

[Mighty AC]

Betsy, you seem to think that media commentary on a the study published by Freeman, Harding, Quigley and Rodger is as valid as the study itself. The study "Structural Control of Crystal Nuclei by an Eggshell Protein" makes no mention of the chicken preceding the egg. As expected it just documents their discovery that the protein ovocleidin-17 (OC-17) very efficiently catalyzes the shell crystallization process. There isn't a lineup of scientists refuting the chicken before egg claim because the study didn't actually make that claim. It was a fun media joke to get people to read the story.

PZ's commentary is about the horrible reporting on a science story. None of the scientists involved deny evolution or make any crazy claims about the appearance of the chicken in the first place.

[Sleipnir]

Which came first? Chicken or the egg.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265484/

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/

[betsy]

Betsy, you seem to think that media commentary on a the study published by Freeman, Harding, Quigley and Rodger is as valid as the study itself. The study "Structural Control of Crystal Nuclei by an Eggshell Protein" makes no mention of the chicken preceding the egg. As expected it just documents their discovery that the protein ovocleidin-17 (OC-17) very efficiently catalyzes the shell crystallization process. There isn't a lineup of scientists refuting the chicken before egg claim because the study didn't actually make that claim. It was a fun media joke to get people to read the story.

PZ's commentary is about the horrible reporting on a science story. None of the scientists involved deny evolution or make any crazy claims about the appearance of the chicken in the first place.

The article was widely pubicized. Check google. So far I've not seen any other refutations, or corrections.

Exactly! Yes, none of the scientists made any statements denying evolution - which lend support in my contention that those scientists were reporting their discovery in an UN-BIASED and therefore, scientific way.

Inspite the fact that they perhaps believed in evolution, they nevertheless reported their findings as it was. Without any seeming embellishment or attempt at spin.

Take note what Kimmy's article said:

"But the researchers have not yet managed to answer how the protein-producing chicken existed in the first place. "

By that statement it'd mean media had asked the question, and that was the reply given!

All I know is that there are no other refutations, corrections or clarifications issued by other true scientists - those whose judgements are not clouded by their atheistic faith!

If you still don't get this, I'm throwing my hands up in the air! And you get lumped and filed along with Cybercoma.

Edited November 2, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Which came first? Chicken or the egg.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2265484/

http://www.cnn.com/2...26/chicken.egg/

Check the date your article was posted. 2006!

Chicken and egg debate unscrambled

Egg came first, 'eggsperts' agree

Friday, May 26, 2006; Posted: 7:33 a.m. EDT (11:33 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/

My article is dated 2010.

Chicken-and-Egg Mystery Finally Cracked

Published July 14, 2010

The Sun

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...s#ixzz2B3dRd7E6]

Edited November 2, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Thank you for that 2006 article, Slipneir.

Anyway....what fairytale was that all about?

Folks....(those who don't wear any tinted glasses)....just take a look at this malarkey.

A good example of spinning yarns and tales.

]LONDON, England -- It's a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?[/b]

Now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.

Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

He told PA people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.

"I would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.

"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."

Bourns, chairman of trade body Great British Chicken, said he was also firmly in the pro-egg camp.

He said: "Eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. Of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs."

http://www.cnn.com/2...26/chicken.egg/

Beware of false prophets.

They based their conclusion on assumptions! It's all full of "if" and "may" and "must-have!"

How would they know what was inside that bloody egg, never mind having lotsa eggs lying all over the place and all that crap. They don't even know what the egg looks like!

What baloney! You buy that???

Edited November 2, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

Check the date your article was posted. 2006!

My article is dated 2010.

You can count? Congratulation! I'm so frigging proud that you can read dates! That's a big step forward to thinking for yourself!

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...s#ixzz2B3dRd7E6]

Which doesn't address the chicken-vs-egg issue - failed.

How would they know what was inside that bloody egg, never mind having lotsa eggs lying all over the place and all that crap. They don't even know what the egg looks like!

You don't have a damn clue what you're talking about do you?

Edited November 2, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Mighty AC]

Ok Betsy, one more time. There was an actual published scientific paper written called "Structural Control of Crystal Nuclei by an Eggshell Protein". That paper simply outlines the role of the protein ovocleidin-17 (OC-17), that catalyzes shell crystallization. OC-17 is, so far, unique but there are other proteins that do the same thing.

The study does not claim that the first chickens to contain OC-17 were not, or could not, be born from eggs. Nor do the scientists themselves. They were either born from hard shells crystallized in a different manner, by one of the many other calcium binding proteins or from a soft shelled eggs.

The chicken before the egg line was just media fun. There aren't a line up of scientists trying to refute the chicken before the egg theory, because there isn't a theory that is proposing that idea. That would be ridiculous.

Another example:

Scientists discover that chocolate contains some antioxidants and publish their findings. The media headlines read "CHOCOLATE IS HEALTHY!". Of course, it's not true...but it gets people to read the story. The Royal Society doesn't hold a press conference to challenge the media headlines, because they don't matter.

[Sleipnir]

The study does not claim that the first chickens to contain OC-17 were not, or could not, be born from eggs. Nor do the scientists themselves. They were either born from hard shells crystallized in a different manner, by one of the many other calcium binding proteins or from a soft shelled eggs.

The chicken before the egg line was just media fun. There aren't a line up of scientists trying to refute the chicken before the egg theory, because there isn't a theory that is proposing that idea. That would be ridiculous.

Another example:

Scientists discover that chocolate contains some antioxidants and publish their findings. The media headlines read "CHOCOLATE IS HEALTHY!". Of course, it's not true...but it gets people to read the story. The Royal Society doesn't hold a press conference to challenge the media headlines, because they don't matter.

I think it useless to try educating a robot.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

Ok Betsy, one more time. There was an actual published scientific paper written called "Structural Control of Crystal Nuclei by an Eggshell Protein". That paper simply outlines the role of the protein ovocleidin-17 (OC-17), that catalyzes shell crystallization. OC-17 is, so far, unique but there are other proteins that do the same thing.

The study does not claim that the first chickens to contain OC-17 were not, or could not, be born from eggs. Nor do the scientists themselves. They were either born from hard shells crystallized in a different manner, by one of the many other calcium binding proteins or from a soft shelled eggs.

The chicken before the egg line was just media fun. There aren't a line up of scientists trying to refute the chicken before the egg theory, because there isn't a theory that is proposing that idea. That would be ridiculous.

Another example:

Scientists discover that chocolate contains some antioxidants and publish their findings. The media headlines read "CHOCOLATE IS HEALTHY!". Of course, it's not true...but it gets people to read the story. The Royal Society doesn't hold a press conference to challenge the media headlines, because they don't matter.

I guess PZ Myers bought it too!

Aw c'mon.....really?

[betsy]

I think it useless to try educating a robot.

Looks like all you know is hurling insults. Too bad. Bye-bye.

[Sleipnir]

Aw c'mon.....really?

I don't understand the purpose of your trolling.

Looks like all you know is hurling insults. Too bad. Bye-bye.

And you're not even going to address the counter-argument

Edited November 3, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Mighty AC]

Betsy, can't address the counter arguments. She read the deceitful, bullshit blog post at Apologetics Press, got excited about it and took the story at face value. The author Eric Lyons, has made it his mission to trick Christians into thinking that evolution is not a fact. Lyons is a dishonest idiot, but Betsy is just guilty of being too proud to back down. It happens to all of us from time to time, but hopefully it just leads to more skepticism and critical thinking.

[BubberMiley]

Whose to say that creationism can't both be true. God is all powerful. We cannot pretend to understand his wisdom. Listen to that voice in your head when you're alone. That's not just your brain humming along, that's God trying to guide you to His path. Listen to Him.

I actually agree with Mr. Canada. Interesting.

Scary. But interesting.

[betsy]

Betsy, can't address the counter arguments. She read the deceitful, bullshit blog post at Apologetics Press, got excited about it and took the story at face value. The author Eric Lyons, has made it his mission to trick Christians into thinking that evolution is not a fact. Lyons is a dishonest idiot, but Betsy is just guilty of being too proud to back down. It happens to all of us from time to time, but hopefully it just leads to more skepticism and critical thinking.

Well....you're entitled to your own personal opinion. Just so happens I don't agree with it.

Personal opinion cannot be taken seriously in a serious discussion, unless they're backed up by something. Let's compare....

You claim it's a "deceitful and bullshit blog," yet you didn't explain how it is so (and provide a back up for your claim). Compare with the way I conducted myself....

I gave the 2006 article Sleipnir dug out, out of desperation I guess - I don't know if he even noticed the date, or if he took the chance that no one will notice - and I knocked that article down showing the bias and UN-SCIENTIFIC mindframes of those mentioned in the article. I told you it is a b***shit article, AND I pointed out the bull! Or the s***!

Sleipner's got in a huff, and puffed out more insults as an answer! Granted it must've been quite irritating for him (to say the least) to have handed me that article on a silver platter - so he whacks me instead!

Speaking of Sleipnir, it's quite funny actually...I find it funny, and his reactions, amusing. But I find it also irritating. I guess we've been doing all the insult-slamming for so long that a new kid in the block starting the same (in a very old thread) - well, you might say I don't have the patience starting all over again and dealing with the same antics (again).

One of his reply to my post was an inquiry as to my age, and an insult (with nothing else) - he edited it but I'd already read it.

Any message with substance that he tries to convey to me is buried by the childish temper tantrums he throws. I think he must've something substantive to say...too bad, they're overshadowed by his "style."

I don't have to put up with tantrums. I don't want to.

So now, I see his name and I automatically assciate it with, TANTRUMS and insults.

I mean, with time beng invested in a forum - if one wants to be able to go through and participate in more topics (like I do who don't have lots of time on my hands) - I guess one has to end up with a system that qualifies those that are worth reading and those that should just be ignored. I just skip him!

Tit for tat. Anyone who doesn't like my style of arguing/debating - please put me on ignore.

I don't have anything against new posters, btw...I welcome them with open arms. It just depends on how one debates, I guess. I'm hoping for mature encounters.

Mighty AC, you try to knockdown the author Eric Lyons (never heard of him) by saying, he "has made it his mission to trick Christians into thinking that evolution is not a fact. Lyons is a dishonest idiot" - yet you don't provide anything to show that! That's just your opinion.....because you don't like what he's saying.

I, on the other hand didn't just simply spew out accusations against Myers. I gave some sources to back me up. I wasn't simply doing a knee-jerk reaction to Myers - I showed I have legitimate reasons why he is not acceptable as a credible source

Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion. If you think all that about Eric Lyons, well think away. Just don't make me accept it as a serious rebuttal, never mind making me buy it as a fact!

Edited November 3, 2012 by betsy

[bleeding heart]

The threads on Christianity on this forum greatly outnumber those critical of Islam started by non believers. islam is executing homosexuals and stoning women everyday yet not a peep from the left wing atheists about it.

Every criticism of religion contains the entirety of the singular mess within it.

If it makes you happy, I eagerly announce that Islam is a superstition, the doctrines are often ludicrous, and Muhammad was a fraud.

I mean...what in hell would one expect from a religion founded by a Businessman?

[GostHacked]

Well....you're entitled to your own personal opinion. Just so happens I don't agree with it.

I don't think you are capable of looking at any other view aside from what you are trying to put forth here. We have several threads which always end up in the same round and round arguments from you and me and the rest of the posters here.

It's sad in a way to see this go around and around.

All of what you posted is a lot of personal opinion as well, and that really is all it is , opinion. The bible is not a historical book, and it is less a scientific book.

[cybercoma]

Any message with substance that he tries to convey to me is buried by the childish temper tantrums he throws.

Sleipnir has been nothing if not quite reasonable with you. He got pissed when you were arrogantly dismissive of his completely rational arguments. You then complain about him throwing insults around, when the whole post that this quote comes from is nothing more than a rant of personal insults, characterizing Sleipnir as "childish." The problem isn't that people don't like your "debating style." It's that you have absolutely no debating style. When someone gives you a well-reasoned argument that is referenced, but disagrees with your beliefs, you stick your fingers in your ears and hum or worse you become condescending and insulting. Take PZ Meyers for instance. He gives an argument that refutes something that you post, so what do you do? You resorted to ad hominem attacks, taking shots at PZ's character rather than the substance of his arguments. You do the exact same thing to posters here that disagree with you, then you run to the moderators and tell them you've been insulted. The only thing that is insulted in here are other people's intelligence when you're being so dismissive of everything that challenges your assumptions.

[betsy]

Okay, time to do another re-cap just so to make it easier for me to know what's already been listed, to avoid double-listng.

Also, makes it easier for those who wish to review them.

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

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

56. FACT: The CHICKEN CAME FIRST! P. 98

[cybercoma]

Betsy that post has been responded to several times in this thread already. Posting it over and over again doesn't make it any more legitimate.

[Guest]

Can I just say, circumcision is best done never.

And it's obvious that the egg must have come first. You can get an egg from something other than a chicken, but you can't get a chicken from something other than an egg.

[Sleipnir]

Well....you're entitled to your own personal opinion. Just so happens I don't agree with it.

Science isn't based on opinion - often times science reveals result that surprises scientists!

Personal opinion cannot be taken seriously in a serious discussion, unless they're backed up by something.

This girl, doesn't know what science is about.

You claim it's a "deceitful and bullshit blog," yet you didn't explain how it is so (and provide a back up for your claim). Compare with the way I conducted myself....

You have chosen to ignore the numerous claims against your blog. The way you conducted yourself would make you a complete laughing stock of the scientific community, trust me.

I gave the 2006 article Sleipnir dug out, out of desperation I guess - I don't know if he even noticed the date, or if he took the chance that no one will notice

Who cares about the date? You do apparently, sad.

- and I knocked that article down showing the bias and UN-SCIENTIFIC mindframes of those mentioned in the article. I told you it is a b***shit article, AND I pointed out the bull! Or the s***!

You didn't...you rejected it before reading the article. Haven't you heard of...idk...reasoning and logic?

Sleipner's got in a huff, and puffed out more insults as an answer! Granted it must've been quite irritating for him (to say the least) to have handed me that article on a silver platter - so he whacks me instead!

You don't seem to understand the concept of 'insult' and what constitute as 'insult'. An 'insult' is not something where someone debunk your assumption.

Speaking of Sleipnir, it's quite funny actually...I find it funny, and his reactions, amusing. But I find it also irritating. I guess we've been doing all the insult-slamming for so long that a new kid in the block starting the same (in a very old thread) - well, you might say I don't have the patience starting all over again and dealing with the same antics (again).

Translation: I can't defend myself against the rebuttal so I'll just complain of being bullied.

Any message with substance that he tries to convey to me is buried by the childish temper tantrums he throws. I think he must've something substantive to say...too bad, they're overshadowed by his "style."

Displaying childish temper + translation = showing scientific evidence.

I don't have to put up with tantrums. I don't want to.

Translation = I don't want to address the counter-argument because I can't.

So now, I see his name and I automatically assciate it with, TANTRUMS and insults.

Actually my name means 'slippy'.

Tit for tat. Anyone who doesn't like my style of arguing/debating - please put me on ignore.

Your style of logic and reasoning is appallingly abysmal.

I don't have anything against new posters, btw...I welcome them with open arms. It just depends on how one debates, I guess. I'm hoping for mature encounters.

Then be mature!

I, on the other hand didn't just simply spew out accusations against Myers. I gave some sources to back me up. I wasn't simply doing a knee-jerk reaction to Myers - I showed I have legitimate reasons why he is not acceptable as a credible source

Your 'source' has nothing to do with the original intent of the argument - chicken or the egg = which comes first. You keep deflecting the argument into something else.

Just don't make me accept it as a serious rebuttal, never mind making me buy it as a fact!

So you're not serious in debating?

Sleipnir has been nothing if not quite reasonable with you. He got pissed when you were arrogantly dismissive of his completely rational arguments.

You nailed it on the head! I was pissed but tried to choose my words carefully to avoid a warning

56. FACT: The CHICKEN CAME FIRST! P. 98

This is going to be an endless cycle - the chicken did not come first, otherwise show me a link to a VALID, SCIENTIFIC paper.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Bonam]

Take PZ Meyers for instance. He gives an argument that refutes something that you post, so what do you do? You resorted to ad hominem attacks, taking shots at PZ's character rather than the substance of his arguments.

To be fair (and I in no way agree with betsy on this topic), the reality is, most members on this forum do the exact same thing with cites/links they don't like. They simply proclaim the link "biased" and declare the person who posted such a link an idiot for posting something so biased. Take a look at the climate threads, each side dismisses the other side's links as biased nonsense. Or threads regarding Islam/immigration, same thing there, cites are routinely dismissed out of hand because they don't agree with a poster's preconceptions on an issue. That's why I often don't bother posting cites when asked: people who disagree will almost invariably just dismiss them anyway.