If no one witnessed the events in the Bible, how do you know that it is true? I will hold you to your own standards.
The "ice age"
- Thread starter Carico
- Start date
I'd be more than happy to:
[silly scriptures omitted for brevity]
So those tiny little words which unbelievers miss that are never contradicted in later books of the bible which were written by different people can only be described as miraculous.
There's nothing missed in those silly little words. He says nothing about "creation" at all. You interpret it to mean such since it fits your belief system and indoctrination, but the fact of the matter is, assuming that Jesus actually uttered those words (and this, itself, is a big assumption), there's nothing in there that isn't consistent with the beliefs of someone who is ignorant of evolutionary processes and the true age of the universe.
Moreover, there's nothing in those words, even if accepted prima facie, that suggests that the planet had to be created the way you think it was or that there was a global flood, or that man didn't evolve.
Sorry, but you just demonstrated your complete and utter willingness to interpret whatever you want however you want as long as it fits your narrow-minded view of the world.
If there is a god, you've blasphemed him by accusing him of being impotent and incompetent to such a degree he cannot create a world or universe in the way it appears he has. You've further blasphemed him by implicitly accusing him of deceiving the world with evidence that it appears to be evolved over time and without a global flood.
And its interesting to note that you've carefully cherry-picked my criticisms in the last few pages of this thread to rely only on those which you think you're knowledgeable about. Not a single real criticism of the sciences behind global climate and geologic studies other than "wah! I don't believe it."
First, no one is alleging that an "ape" turned into a human. This is because Homo sapiens sapiens are a species of ape. Other great apes and non-human primates evolved from the same ancient ancestor and this has been demonstrated to a degree in which it is far, far more likely than alternative explanations, which involve the supernatural (which has never been shown to exist).
The scope of this demonstration is far and beyond the ability of a single thread post since it would require that you actually obtain an education in that which you think you are criticizing: science.
I can point you to a list of texts which will build your knowledge to the point at which you can understand the data, however, you like most creationist nutbars (and this is a valid term since to believe in Creation in the manner you do is one of the nuttiest and most laughable ideas in the modern world, indeed, the rest of the world literally laughs at American creationists) make the assumption that evolution is something to be "proved" in a simple calculation like 2+3=5 since 5 minus either one equals the other.
This is a fallacy of logical thinking since the fact of evolution involves nearly every scientific discipline and has many lines of research and to adequately explain or "prove" would be akin to teaching you calculus when you haven't even an understanding of basic algebra.
But, if you want the texts, which are available at your local library or through the magic of inter-library loan, I'm happy to recommend them. The education would be free.
OK, I am convinced. The Bible is God's words and literally true.
Surely there were no human translators or error prone scribes messing with the “Words of God” in the Bible.
BTW is that quote from the Protestant, the Roman Catholic, the Coptic or Greek Orthodox version of the English Bible?
That was very stupid of him. No wonder they hung him up. (Insane asylums not having been invented yet.) Everyone would have recognized him as babbling idiot as English like that was still1800 years into the future.
Surely there were no human translators or error prone scribes messing with the “Words of God” in the Bible.
BTW is that quote from the Protestant, the Roman Catholic, the Coptic or Greek Orthodox version of the English Bible?
Last edited by a moderator:
Considering that a "homo-sapiens" is nothing more than a sculpture of the bones of many different animals and humans, then it's as fictitious as the common ancestor is. So that isn't data, it's called artwork. Sorry.
So again, until you know what happened in history by the accounts of those who lived in the past instead of making up your own history, you aren't educated enough to converse with about history.
Hey God-boy,
Homo sapiens is the scientific classification for modern humans. Are you fictitious?
Homo sapiens is the scientific classification for modern humans. Are you fictitious?
You truly have no clue about what you're going on about, do you? Wow.
How is it okay for you to just make up whatever you want then? Moreover, where is it demonstrated (I've asked this several times in at least two threads) that I or someone else is unaware of "what happened in history" or that they're "making up" history?
By the way she types, I highly doubt we're conversing with a male. Nor do I think she is young enough to be considered "boy" if she were.
I think, based on experience, that we're talking to a woman in her forties or fifties. This is relevant since studies have shown that females are more easily brainwashed into cults than males, who are more willing to accept new ideas or knowledge and, if she's as old as I think, she's been brainwashed a long time.
How about it, carico? Am I right? Do you have a "Y"-chromosome? Do you remember the Carter administration?
Carico isn't real, he/she is artwork! I guess that's in the Bible somewhere.
Good point, science needs to look for confirmation of what has been handed down to us from the ancients, not reinvent ideas by the so called “Scientific Method."...So again, until you know what happened in history by the accounts of those who lived in the past instead of making up your own history, you aren't educated enough to converse with about history.
I hope you will send some funds for my first expedition - It will try to discover the exact point of contact between Earth and the Great Turtle, which supports Earth.
Since the "scientific" method makes assertions that no one in the past or present has witnessed or documented, then the scientific method relies on the imagination for evidence, not what happens in the real world. So I'll stick with what happens int he real world; you can stick with your imagination.
Nature has documented what happened in nature. We only have to read it like a book.
Yup. And when you observe nature you see that each animal reproduces itself, not a completely new species. That's why it's called re-production.
No, that's cloning. The progeny of any sexual species is never an exact copy of the parent(s).
So do you know what the term "reproduction" means? or not?
Do you know why humans produce humans, apes produce apes, cows produce cows? Or not? If not, then of course you're not qualified to discuss reproduction and genetics. You live in the twilight zone where pigs breed chickens, cows breed horses and apes or unknown animals breed humans. So you need to come back to reality & get educated first. The ignorance of basic biology among those who follow scientists is much worse than I thought.
Humans do produce humans, and apes do produce apes, by the accepted definition of species. However, they also change over time. If a group of animals (or plants) is separated from the original group for a long enough time, they eventually change so much that they can no longer reproduce with the original group, making them a separate species. After that they can drift even further apart. You are talking about a limited timeframe (one lifetime), I am talking about long term trends.
Have you ever seen an ape's descendants change over time?
Into what, praytell? Or do you simply live in your imagination where animals change into anything you want them to over time? It's obviously the latter. evolution thus belongs in the category of science fiction, not science.
I'm not a million years old. I do see such change reflected in the fossil record.
Biology 101.
Biology 101.
Again, since many of the assertions of scientists weren't witnessed by anyone, then by their reasoning, we don't need witnesses to any of the events in the bible to claim they're true.