The Bible

[betsy]

betsy, don't be fatuous. This thread is 117 pages long. Earlier, kimmy soundly demolished your claim that the Bible is proven by science. There are many instances that have been brought up here over and over again where the Bible was disproven by science.

Look, I already gave you the link. And you know we're talking about your comment on Sanitation/ Public Health - if you're going to tap dance around the issue....I'll have to ignore you again.

Anyway, looks like your well is all dried up that's why you're now spouting pure nonsense...so I think I'll just ignore you until you have something to say that's worth responding to.

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Look, I already gave you the link. And you know we're talking about your comment on Sanitation/ Public Health - if you're going to tap dance around the issue....I'll have to ignore you again.

Anyway, looks like your well is all dried up that's why you're now spouting pure nonsense...so I think I'll just ignore you until you have something to say that's worth responding to.

OOOOPS. I mistook you for Sleipnir?

Oh well, with you guys - one reply fits all.

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

OOOOPS. I mistook you for Sleipnir?

You trying to insult yourself?

[betsy]

EVOLUTION: It all started with the Big Bang. A Magical Fairytale - Carl Gallups Explains

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

EVOLUTION: It all started with the Big Bang. A Magical Fairytale - Carl Gallups Explains

Life and evolution: it all started with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the synthesis of iron sulfide along the deep ocean platelets boundaries 4.1 billion years ago.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Sleipnir

[The_Squid]

Evolution and the big bang are not the same thing. Someone doesn't understand either scientific theory....

[Moonlight Graham]

Taking cue from the Berkeley speciation hypothesis:

I've made a plausible account of how the bull****ing will occur ....but of course, it’s hard for me to get an eye-witness account of that special event between you and your son since it's still not happened yet....and may/may not happen (at all) in the distant or not so distant future.

However, I can use your attitude as a model to make predictions and then check these predictions against my observations of the natural world of children and teens, and hypothesize on this possible drama from the outcomes of those experience(s).

I used to run a daycare.

Don't dish out what you can't take, you silly goose.

Maybe I'll just give him/her a copy of the Bible and a high school science textbook to read and let him/her have at it.

The whole approach to your belief system is anti-scientific. You've made your conclusions first, and in this thread and elsewhere you're now trying to find evidence to support your conclusions after the fact. Science is the other way around.

[betsy]

Life and evolution: it all started with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the synthesis of iron sulfide along the deep ocean platelets boundaries 4.1 billion years ago.

Yeah?

Let's assume you could be right. Where did the so-called, "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, the so-called, "iron sulfide," and the so-called "deep ocean platelets" come from?

Edited November 25, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Evolution and the big bang are not the same thing. Someone doesn't understand either scientific theory....

Oh boy Squid......<bangs head against wall>

Yes, we know they are not the same thing.

But what obviously you don't know is that they're supposed to be "linked" - as part of your "chain gang."

When you start TRACING BACK what had supposedly evolved from what....you'll have no choice but to keep "peeling off the onion skin" until you get to the very, very core - THE BEGINNING!

ORIGIN does not start with the frog!

So when you talk about evolution - it's inevitable you gotta deal with The Big Bang - or whatever they assume happened to start the "knitting" process.

Just see the questions put on Sleipnir for his assumption.

Edited November 25, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Maybe I'll just give him/her a copy of the Bible and a high school science textbook to read and let him/her have at it.

The whole approach to your belief system is anti-scientific.

I don't know how you came to that deduction......but I never claim that The Bible is a scientific book nor do I claim that it's trying to prove science.

You've made your conclusions first, and in this thread and elsewhere you're now trying to find evidence to support your conclusions after the fact. Science is the other way around.

Just like evolutionist atheist do. They'd made their conclusion first that it couldn't have been created or designed.....that there is no supernaturalism involved (although you High priest Dawkins admit that he cannot prove that God does not exists)....and now they're trying - desperately - even just a single evidence to support their conclusion. In other words - as you now admit - evolutionist-atheist are not being scientific.

Hey, how many times have I said that here? How many times have I said evolutionist-atheists are no longer looking for scientific facts? How can they, when they're driven by faith? How can they, when like horses, they've put their blinders on to concentrate on their tunnel vision - their quest to prove that there is no God - instead of really wanting to know the answers as to origin?

How many times have I said evolutionist-atheists are no longer being scientific? Thank you for supporting my argument.

So I question your rationality. Your "good" judgement. Your common sense.

If atheists believe the astronomical mathematical probability of evolutionists' preferred version of origin, as possible- without any single proof to support it - they don't make sense when they throw out the Bible despite the astronomical mathematical probability of its listed facts - not to mention the 300 or so Jesus Prophecies that have all come true!

Can you imagine that just with the Jesus Prophecies alone - it's multiplying the astronomical mathematical probability x 300 (minimum)!

I'm not even asking you to believe the Bible. All I'm saying is why would you readily dismiss the Bible, when you easily swallow the evolutionist's assumption of origin?

Based on the above explanation: Therefore, it is evolutionist atheists who are showing to be without reason....

....being close-minded....and woefully ignorant.

Edited November 25, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

Where did the so-called, "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, the so-called, "iron sulfide," and the so-called "deep ocean platelets" come from?

You don't have the slightest clue what are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, iron sulfide synthesis and ocean platelets do you?

[Sleipnir]

ORIGIN does not start with the frog!

I seriously hope that was sarcasm.

So when you talk about evolution - it's inevitable you gotta deal with The Big Bang - or whatever they assume happened to start the "knitting" process.

No you don't, big bang and evolution are entirely two separate different concepts and issues.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Sleipnir

[jbg]

Therefore - your belief is purely based on faith! If you are an atheist - you cannot step out of that box - otherwise you'd no longer be an atheist.

I believe there has to be a balance between reason and faith. In general the Bible strikes that balance fairly well. I am willing to suspend disbelief for some of the stories since in general the Bible squares with human experience.

[Smallc]

I believe there has to be a balance between reason and faith.

Faith in something that almost certainly doesn't exist seems rather unreasonable to me.

[msj]

I believe there has to be a balance between reason and faith. In general the Bible strikes that balance fairly well. I am willing to suspend disbelief for some of the stories since in general the Bible squares with human experience.

Interesting.

So, the story of Job - does this strike a reasonable balance? Why or why not?

[jbg]

I believe there has to be a balance between reason and faith. In general the Bible strikes that balance fairly well. I am willing to suspend disbelief for some of the stories since in general the Bible squares with human experience.

Faith in something that almost certainly doesn't exist seems rather unreasonable to me.

Then how come so many of the stories, such as those involving sibling rivalry, and squabbles over inheritances, ring true?

[GostHacked]

A fish that walks?? Transitional species?? God got some 'splainin to do.

[Smallc]

Because people wrote them, and, those things happen to people and always have. The problem comes with the contradiction, the bad advice, and the overall outdated look on the world. A book written to control people almost 2000 years ago is, IMO, not a good guide on how to live one's life...especially when it apparently came from a being far more powerful than ourselves, one that demands our adoration despite what he's supposed to be.

No thanks.

[Sleipnir]

A fish that walks?? Transitional species?? God got some 'splainin to do.

Is that even a fish?

[GostHacked]

Is that even a fish?

Transitional species is what I'd like to call it.

It's called a frog fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogfish

Edited November 25, 2012 by GostHacked

[Sleipnir]

It's called a frog fish.

The wikipedia shows it preferring the sea floor, not so much for swimming throughout the water column.

An example of a 'transition' species would be the snakehead fish.

They're able to:

-breath in air and water.

-swim and walk on land.

-attack and consume aquatic and land organism (including mouse, snakes and other kinds of small animals).

Also known as an invasive species in North America.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

I seriously hope that was sarcasm.

No you don't, big bang and evolution are entirely two separate different concepts and issues.

Let me prove it to you. But first you've got to deal with this post:

Sleipnir:

Life and evolution: it all started with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the synthesis of iron sulfide along the deep ocean platelets boundaries 4.1 billion years ago.

I've asked you before....I'll ask you again. Don't try to change the channel.

Where did your so-called "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons," and the so-called iron sulfide, and the "deep ocean platelets" come from?

Edited November 25, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

You don't have the slightest clue what are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, iron sulfide synthesis and ocean platelets do you?

Since you claim to be the expert, explain how life and evolution began with those. Give a back-up source to support your claim ....

[Sleipnir]

Where did your so-called "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons," and the so-called iron sulfide, and the "deep ocean platelets" come from?

Iron sulfide = Iron + sulphur = iron (II) sulfide.

ocean platelets = from the Earth geology.

Hydrocarbon compounds = from chemical interactions.

[Moonlight Graham]

Just like evolutionist atheist do. They'd made their conclusion first that it couldn't have been created or designed.....that there is no supernaturalism involved (although you High priest Dawkins admit that he cannot prove that God does not exists)....and now they're trying - desperately - even just a single evidence to support their conclusion. In other words - as you now admit - evolutionist-atheist are not being scientific.

Hey, how many times have I said that here? How many times have I said evolutionist-atheists are no longer looking for scientific facts? How can they, when they're driven by faith? How can they, when like horses, they've put their blinders on to concentrate on their tunnel vision - their quest to prove that there is no God - instead of really wanting to know the answers as to origin?

How many times have I said evolutionist-atheists are no longer being scientific? Thank you for supporting my argument.

So I question your rationality. Your "good" judgement. Your common sense.

...

I'm not even asking you to believe the Bible. All I'm saying is why would you readily dismiss the Bible, when you easily swallow the evolutionist's assumption of origin?

Well first, I've never claimed on this forum that I'm an atheist. I've also never read anything by Dawkins, but I've seen a few video clips of him.

Science is often based on theories. Theories are the most convincing likelihood of true knowledge based on real evidence.

An atheist basing their beliefs scientifically, as would any being basing their beliefs on the existing evidence, would be most logical to believe that humans very likely evolved from primates in Africa, and that the universe likely began with the "big bang". These are not 100% truths as any scientist would admit, these are based on the theories of evolution and the big-bang theory, neither 100% proveable but by far the most likely scenarios that humanity has discovered thus far.

The Bible creation theories in the book of Genesis have very little real scientific evidence to back them up. Nobody can claim they are 100% false, just as nobody can claim that polka-dot spaghetti monsters existing is 100% false. It's just that very inadequate amounts of evidence exist to claim they are are true. The best evidence existing to say that Genesis stories are actually true is that they were written in a very old book. That's about as convincing as believing events in Homer's "The Odyssey" and other Greek myths being true. Billions of people in the world believing them isn't evidence that they're true.

Evidence doesn't exist either way to say WHAT exactly caused the big bang (or maybe more accurately, how the matter involved in the big bang initially came to exist). Was it a powerul being(s) we can't see? Was it some other energy force we don't know about? Was it a purple alien with 14 eyes? Proper evidence doesn't exist, so my belief is the same as science in that I don't know how the universe came into being. Betsy, you are right to challenge anyone who claims to 100% know that God doesn't exist, but then again there isn't adequate observable evidence to show he does exist either. So believing in God is indeed faith.