Black Dog Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Oh baloney! I've said it before and I'll explain it again. I'm debating with non-believers, therefore I cannot just go about invoking simply faith! You guys were the ones who cockily threw the usual challenge(s) in past threads! You've made gloating claims about the ignorance of believing in God, that faith is without reason and senseless, that Christians are close-minded believers. But you never really reflected on yourselves, and on your own belief! All I did was accept your challenge, and engage you in an area I'd assume you'd understand the most - science. That science now proves that it is infact evolutionists who show ignorance by their lack of understanding, their inability to grasp logical reasoning - that therefore, evolutionists are the ones being senseless and without reason - and are actually the ones who are close-minded, naturally must be the most unexpected result you'd ever imagined! Whacked! Getting clubbered by your own club! This is just gibberish. You keep ignoring this challenge: Just because you ignore that which you cannot explain, does not necessarily mean it's gone. That same reality still exists. Anyway, evolutionists' bumbums nowhere look as cute - nor are they even remotely similar - to ostriches' behinds from where I look....just so you know. Betsy it's been answered several times. You keep ignoring the responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 All I did was accept your challenge, and engage you in an area I'd assume you'd understand the most - science. That science now proves that it is infact evolutionists who show ignorance by their lack of understanding, their inability to grasp logical reasoning - that therefore, evolutionists are the ones being senseless and without reason - and are actually the ones who are close-minded, naturally must be the most unexpected result you'd ever imagined! Whacked! Your dishonesty is astonishing. You know the answer has been provided to your query. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Whether it is or it is not the right translation....the fact of the matter is that the word, "stretches" or "stretching," still ended up appearing in the Bible! 11 times! In the right context!How is that??? Coincidence? Even a broken clock is correct twice a day... Deists have seized on this word that happens to be in the bible and make it suit their argument that the bible "got it right". What about all the things it got wrong? The earth is billions of years old.... why did the bible get that so wrong? The bible doesn't contain any science. It's like numerology.... if you are vague enough you can point to places where you "got it right" so it must be just like science! LOL It's a joke.... It's OK to say that you have faith and nothing can shake that. But when you try and explain that you believe because it is all scientifically true, then it just makes you seem silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 When in doubt put your fingers in your ears and lie as much as possible. That's the best, most rational way to defend your arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Betsy it's been answered several times. You keep ignoring the responses. Nope. You promptly disappeared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 :lol: You don't want to engage in debate? Answer the questions posed, as others did of yours. Otherwise you are merely proselytizing, and that gets boring very fast... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Nope. You promptly disappeared. You can't read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 These scientists are on the verge of making a breakthrough discovery! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YsdPsIFbM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 Nope. You promptly disappeared. What's this, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 These scientists are on the verge of making a breakthrough discovery! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YsdPsIFbM How about you give us a synopsis so that I don't have to watch 45 minutes of a youtube video and realize that its bullshit and not worth watching... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) How about you give us a synopsis so that I don't have to watch 45 minutes of a youtube video and realize that its bullshit and not worth watching... It's a scientific video, made by real scientists. I'm sure a few here must have watched it. The fact that there is no immediate refutation means they must at least be thinking about it! I saw it for the first time a few years ago. In fact it is so interesting, I suggest you watch it and then also watch the two others made in this same series. You won't be disappointed! Edited September 14, 2012 by Manny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) What's this, then? I didn't say they knew anything about the subject! In fact I've stated it before somewhere that they'd probably wondered about the meaning of what they wrote! Science say the accurate description is "stretching." That word appeared 11 times in the right context! How could they have done it 11 times? Without any instruments! Thousands of years ago....and yet we just understood in 1929, with the Huble telescope? All your beliefs about origin are pegged on chance after chance after chance! A whole series of accidents or by sheer chance! For someone who readily accepts the theory that everything was created by accident as valid and true - without any proof - you tell me why it's so hard for you to accept this particular occurence? Edited September 15, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 Actually, I've left out two other Biblical descriptions which used the word, "bowed." Well apparently I've read that it is possible for space to "bend." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 What do you get when you put a less-than-remedial understanding of science together with a crippled understanding of the Bible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 So, if I'm following what Betsy is saying: When scholars in Jolly Olde England were translating the Bible into English, God was with them to make sure that they used the word "stretched" to describe the making of the heavens. (...but He still couldn't be bothered to explain to them that He made the sun and stars *before* He made the plants.) -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 Let me see if I get it right... Scientists use the word stretching to describe the expension of the Universe. The word stretching is used in 11 Biblical verses pertaining to the Universe. Therefore those verses accurately describe what scientists describe as stretching. How come then this works when using English translation of the Bible, and not those in other languages? Surely, if one takes French, for example, one would expect the same word to be always used, and for that word to match the one used by scientists to describe the expension of the Universe. Yet, such is not the case. Well, I must assume one of two things - either these verses are not a description of how God's creation works, and were not meant as such, or... God has seen fit to reveal to English-speaking believers things that are not to be revealed to believers speaking other languages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) Whether translation is wrong or not..... does not matter. You guys are all ignoring this simple logic. For someone who readily accepts the theory that everything was created by accident as valid and true - without any proof - you tell me why it's so hard for you to accept this particular occurence? Science say the accurate description is "stretching." That word appeared 11 times in the right context! How could they have done it 11 times? Without any instruments! Thousands of years ago....and yet we just understood in 1929, with the Huble telescope? Well? It's true. You guys believe in a long series of accidents after accidents - without a single proof of any of these accidents - and yet you readily reject this argument about the Bible! You don't make any sense at all! Edited September 16, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) You're all trying to skate around the point. All your beliefs about origin are pegged on chance after chance after chance! A whole series of accidents or by sheer chance! And that still doesn't even address the question as who created or where and how that very beginning of all these things originate! The video from Manny says in the beginning there was gas! Well, where did that gas come from? How did it come to exist? You guys are full of beans.... Edited September 16, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 16, 2012 Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) Whether translation is wrong or not..... does not matter. You guys are all ignoring this simple logic.(...) Science say the accurate description is "stretching." That word appeared 11 times in the right context! How could they have done it 11 times? Without any instruments! Thousands of years ago....and yet we just understood in 1929, with the Huble telescope? Whether translation is wrong or not doesn't matter... But the argument is centred around the fact that one word in translations in one language appears 11 times "in the right" context. BTW... English translations of the Bible are not thousands of years old. Your argument only makes sense if the same word was used in the original Hebrew text all those 11 times and is also used today in the Hebrew language to describe what English-speaking scientists describe as the stretching of the Universe. And if it is also true in every translation of the Bible, no matter the language. I don't speak and read Hebrew. Do you Betsy? And if so, care to demonstrate that the same word was used eleven times in the ORIGINAL text and is also the term used today in Hebrew to describe the stretching of the Universe? Or am I supposed to believe that only the translators who worked on the King James translation were told by God somethng He didn't bother telling to His original scribes more than 2000 years ago? Edited September 16, 2012 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) I'm asking you now..... For someone who readily accepts the theory that everything was created by accident as valid and true - without any proof - you tell me why it's so hard for you to accept this particular occurence? You all imply somehow this word, "stretches" - which appeared 11 times, in the right context - that now science says, accurately describes what the universe is doing, is just an accident! Well? Why is it so hard for you to accept this "accident" and yet you're all willing to accept an assumptive long series of convoluted accidents - without a single proof to back any of those accidents? And it's not as if this word, "stretches" is the only single "accident" that the Bible managed to produce that's now backed by modern science. That's the big difference between these Biblical "accidents" from your origin "accidents." These Biblical "accidents" are supported by science! Whereas your accidents are still just plain assumptions! God said He created everything. The Bible produced a word that scientifically describes the universe - written 11 times by simple men from thousands of years ago with no help from technology! We only found out in 1929, with the help of the Huble telescope. And yet, the ancient men managed to explain it simply. If this was done by accident -as you want to imply - then, what's so difficult about this "accident" to accept? You know what? It's the same reason why atheist scientists find it so hard to accept the possibility of Design or Creation. The possibility of God. Edited September 16, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 16, 2012 Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 God said He created everything. The Bible produced a word that scientifically describes the universe - written 11 times by simple men from thousands of years ago with no help from technology! We only found out in 1929, with the help of the Huble telescope. And yet, the ancient men managed to explain it simply. If this was done by accident -as you want to imply - then, what's so difficult about this "accident" to accept? The same word was used 11 times in the original Hebrew text? And it is still used today by Israeli scientists to describe the expension of the Universe? Care to show me what the Hebrew word is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 16, 2012 Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 For someone who readily accepts the theory that everything was created by accident as valid and true - without any proof - you tell me why it's so hard for you to accept this particular occurence? Do you know what a strawman argument is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 16, 2012 Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 You're all trying to skate around the point. All your beliefs about origin are pegged on chance after chance after chance! A whole series of accidents or by sheer chance! This thought above, is separate from the thought below. It's an attempt to confuse origin with evolution. And that still doesn't even address the question as who created or where and how that very beginning of all these things originate! The video from Manny says in the beginning there was gas! Well, where did that gas come from? How did it come to exist? You guys are full of beans.... You've skated around every reply for pages and pages. And this is the reason you are my fave troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 16, 2012 Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 The same word was used 11 times in the original Hebrew text? And it is still used today by Israeli scientists to describe the expension of the Universe? Care to show me what the Hebrew word is? Even if it did, why would that matter? It wouldn't prove the existence of god. I'm sure there are plenty of other instances in many other holy books where true believers can point to and say "see? SEE? God wrote this cuz it happens to be sort of what we know now to be true". And when it doesn't work out that way, they pull something out of their ass that is ridiculous to anyone with half a brain but proves the bible is predictive and "true". I read somewhere how people shouldn't take the 6 days as literal, but that they are 6 "god days", which are much longer than normal days.... See? Bible is true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.