Anyone else notice?

[bodecea]

When ever someone on the left is accused of Rape or sexual misconduct the liberals always defend them? Make disparaging remarks about the charges and generally claim nothing important happened?

Of course if a Republican even smiles at a pretty girl those same people are all hot to prosecute for something, anything.

Name names, my friend.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you understand that man originated as a pack animal?
The morals you speak of originated out of a collective need to help each other.
Its really no damned mystery

Can you or can you not use "logic" to create a sound argument for Objective Morality?

 

[bodecea]

Oh my, hit a nerve on ol' RGS. Well, RGS, you dumb ass, read Newties comments concerning the lady that drowned her two children in the river. And then notice how he shut up when it came out that she had been the victum of incest with her father since she was a small child. And her father was the Republican Committee Chairman for that Southern State County.

There are evil people in every group, pretending, as you do, that they only exist in some other group is the evidence of a weak mind, wedded to a weak ideology.

Yup no one from the left defended Clinton's sexual misconduct In Arkansas and the White House. No one on the left attacked the women that were sexually abused by him.

And now we have Assange and Jillian and company are claiming a Country lied about a criminal investigation involving RAPE to get him. They are attacking the women that made the claim. Par for the course. Kennedy Murders a woman and no one cares. Another Kennedy rapes a woman and the left could care less. Clinton abuses at least 3 women that were his subordinates and you all attack the women. Assange is accused of rape and you all attack the women. Par for the course.

Sexually abused? The evidence to convict him of that....is....?

 

[bodecea]

Oh you mean like that recent string of Rs who kept trying to fuck aides or get head in the airport with a wide stance who were then labled democrats by Fox news repetedly?

What you fail to see is it is YOUR side who claims to be MORE Godly that defends the creeps in your midst.

2007 is recent?

Apparently as recent as the early 60s and the 90s.

 

[bodecea]

Do you understand that man originated as a pack animal?

The morals you speak of originated out of a collective need to help each other.

Its really no damned mystery

Who's morals are right, who gets to determine what is 'moral'?

Golden Rule, pretty simple really.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Your mind isnt human?

I'm not sure yours is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

wait wait wait, god can not apply science. no one can apply science. science is defined as a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.

One can apply the 'laws' of science.

It is a study not an application of will or god. since god is based on faith, he can not be proven or will ever be proven to exist.

He can prove that He exists, if He chooses.

(hence why it is a leap of faith) on the other hand, science may one day actual disprove that he exists.

This is logically impossible.

religion keeps changing its tune, everything time science is able to disprove something in the bible as an "act of god". just like everything you listed.

That may be the case for some people, but not all. There's nothing in science that cannot be also explained by the hand of God, especially if the argument is that all of the laws of nature were put forth by God.

as for adam and eve, and your line "and there is no evidence they did NOT exist." how do you prove that something doesnt exist?

Didn't you just say that "sceince may one day actual[ly] disprove that He exists"?

 

[Newby]

Do you understand that man originated as a pack animal?

The morals you speak of originated out of a collective need to help each other.

Its really no damned mystery

Who's morals are right, who gets to determine what is 'moral'?

Golden Rule, pretty simple really.

No, not really, there are books filled with the subject from scholars on both sides of the fence. I guess they should have consulted you first and you could have saved them a lot of time.

 

[Jarhead]

Per line one...

No. What I am saying is much that was labeled as myth by "non believers" very well may be factual and supported by science.

Yes, people believe that Moses (through God) parted the Red Sea. Many non believers denied that the Red Sea parted completely dispelling the whole "exodus" story and thuis referring to it as a Myth. However, science now shows how such actually may have happened..and yes, Moses was in the right place at the right time.

As for the burning bush...pretty much the same as above.

As for Adam and Eve,...you are correct, there is no evidence..and there is no evidence they did NOT exist.

But now for the fianle...

People called it myth at one time becuase it did not make scientific sense. However, now many things in the bible have been found to possibly HAVE happened scientifically.

But this does not ignore God and creation.

Those that believe in God, believe science is his creation. So when the sea parted, if it were scientifically impossible, I can see one seeing it as myth. But now tht we found it could be scientifically possible, perhaps it was God that applied his science to make it happen at the right time?

Who are we to deny such thinking?

wait wait wait, god can not apply science. no one can apply science. science is defined as a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. it is a study not an application of will or god. since god is based on faith, he can not be proven or will ever be proven to exist. (hence why it is a leap of faith) on the other hand, science may one day actual disprove that he exists. (see the god particle here: Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

religion keeps changing its tune, everything time science is able to disprove something in the bible as an "act of god". just like everything you listed.

as for adam and eve, and your line "and there is no evidence they did NOT exist." how do you prove that something doesnt exist? its the other way around, you have to prove that something exists otherwise it simply does not. i can claim there is intelligent human beings on other planets, but until i can prove that they exist, they then claim is simply false. just like adam and eve. until you can prove that they existed scientifically, then they simply did not.

OK...my error.
I should have used the "laws of science"....or perhaps I should have defined each action such as "a tsunami" or "clay from the mountains painting the water red"....but we are adults and I assumed you would not play semantics with me....and I assume you will not play that game again with me.

Religion does not keep changing its tune. Those that do not believe in the Bible put peoiple in a position to defend it. So yes, when "science" implies something can not happen, defenders fall back on "an act of God"...UNTIL "science" is then found to prove that it could have happened "scientifically."...

For example, until about a month ago, it was believed that all life ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE must have certain elements to exist. ANd yet, we discovered life on our own planet that does NOT require such elements....knowledge of what is possible is always increasing.

And I disagree....it is not up to one to prove that Adam and Eve existed.....the belief they existed came fisrt. It is up to you or someone to prove that they didnt exist.

Nice civil debate....enjoying it....but please dont play the semantics game...iot gets us nowhere.

And by the way...I am not a religious man by any means...but I have studies to learn why religious people feel as they do.

I am not a liberal by any means...but I continually like to debate those that are liberal so I can understand why they feel as they do.

 

[Common Sense]

Per line one...

No. What I am saying is much that was labeled as myth by "non believers" very well may be factual and supported by science.

Yes, people believe that Moses (through God) parted the Red Sea. Many non believers denied that the Red Sea parted completely dispelling the whole "exodus" story and thuis referring to it as a Myth. However, science now shows how such actually may have happened..and yes, Moses was in the right place at the right time.

As for the burning bush...pretty much the same as above.

As for Adam and Eve,...you are correct, there is no evidence..and there is no evidence they did NOT exist.

But now for the fianle...

People called it myth at one time becuase it did not make scientific sense. However, now many things in the bible have been found to possibly HAVE happened scientifically.

But this does not ignore God and creation.

Those that believe in God, believe science is his creation. So when the sea parted, if it were scientifically impossible, I can see one seeing it as myth. But now tht we found it could be scientifically possible, perhaps it was God that applied his science to make it happen at the right time?

Who are we to deny such thinking?

wait wait wait, god can not apply science. no one can apply science. science is defined as a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. it is a study not an application of will or god. since god is based on faith, he can not be proven or will ever be proven to exist. (hence why it is a leap of faith) on the other hand, science may one day actual disprove that he exists. (see the god particle here: Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

religion keeps changing its tune, everything time science is able to disprove something in the bible as an "act of god". just like everything you listed.

as for adam and eve, and your line "and there is no evidence they did NOT exist." how do you prove that something doesnt exist? its the other way around, you have to prove that something exists otherwise it simply does not. i can claim there is intelligent human beings on other planets, but until i can prove that they exist, they then claim is simply false. just like adam and eve. until you can prove that they existed scientifically, then they simply did not.

What has science disproven that is in the Bible?

hmmm lets start with the ability to walk on water for one...
but heres a few more:

1. Astronomy: First we deal with Astronomy., The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days.

2. The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day? - It is unscientific.

3. Further, the, Bible says Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses 9 to 13… ‘Earth was created on the 3rd day. How can you have a night and day without the earth ? The day depends upon the rotation of the Earth Without the earth created, how can you have a night and day?

4. Genesis, Ch. No. 1 Verses 9 to 13 says… ‘Earth was created on the third day.’ Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses 14 to 19 says…‘The Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day.’ Today science tells us… ‘Earth is part of the parent body… the sun.’ It cannot come into existence before the sun – It is unscientific.

5. The Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No. 11 to 13…‘The vegetation, the herbs the shrubs, the trees - they were created on the 3rd day And the Sun, Genesis, Ch. No. 1, Verses. 14 to 19, was created on the 4th day.How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight ?

6. The Bible says in Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses No.16, that…‘God created two lights the greater light, the Sun to rule the day, and the lesser light the Moon, to rule the night. The actual translation, if you go to the Hebrew text, it is ‘lamps’…‘Lamps having lights of its own.’ And that you will come to know better, if you read both the Verses – Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse. 16, as well as 17. Verse No.17 says…‘And Almighty God placed them in the firmament, to give light to the earth… To give light to the earth.’ Indicating, that Sun and the Moon has its own light - which is in contradiction with established scientific knowledge that we have.

7.It is mentioned in the Bible, in the book of Hebrews, Ch. No.1 Verses No.10 and 11, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.102, Verse No.25 and 26, that…‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, and they will perish.’ Exactly opposite is mentioned in the book of Ecclesiastics, Ch. No.1, Verse No.4, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.78, Verse No.69, that… ‘The earth will abide forever.’ Which will take place? The Earth will perish or abide forever? The both can't take place. It's unscientific!

8. In the field of ‘Diet and Nutrition’ lets analyse, what does the Bible say. The Bible says in the book of Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No.29, that… ‘God has given you all the herbs bearing seeds, the trees bearing fruits - those that bear seed, as meat for you.’ New International Version says… ‘The seed bearing plants, and the trees bearing fruits bearing seeds are food for you, all of them.’ Today, even a layman knows that there are several poisonous plants like wild berries, stritchi, datura, plants containing alkaloid, polyander, bacaipoid - that which if you ingest, if you eat there are high possibilities you may die. How come the Creator of the universe and the human beings, does not know, that if you have these plants, you will die.

9. he Bible has a scientific test how to identify a true believer. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, Ch. No.16, Verse No.17 and 18 - It says that… ‘There will be signs for true believers and among the signs - In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak foreign tongues, new tongues, they shall take up serpents - And if they drink deadly poison, they shall not be harmed - And when they place their hand over the sick, they shall be cured.’ This is a scientific test - In scientific terminology, it is known as the ‘confirmatory test’ for a true Christian believer. There has not been a single true believing Christian that has ever passed this test, because no one's willing to even try.

10. What does the Bible say regarding ‘Hydrology’? Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.9, Verse No.13 to 17, that… ‘After God, at the time of Noah submerged the world by flood, and after the flood’ subsided, He said… ‘I put up a rainbow in the sky as a promise to the humankind never to submerge the world again, by water. To the unscientific person it may be quite good… ‘Oh rainbow is a sign of Almighty God, never to submerge the world by flood again.’ But today we know very well, that rainbow is due to the refraction of sunlight, with rain or mist. Surely there must have been thousands of rainbows before the time of Noah, peace be upon him. To say it was not there before Noah’s time you have to assume that the law of refraction did not exist - which is unscientific.

11. In the field of medicine, the Bible says in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.14, Verse No.49 to 53 - it gives a novel way for disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy… disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy. It says that… ‘Take two birds, kill one bird, take wood, scale it - and the other living bird, dip it in water… and under running water - later on sprinkle the house 7 times with it. Sprinkle the house with blood to disinfect against plague of leprosy? You know blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, as well as toxins! Unscientific!

12. It is mentioned in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.12, Verse No.1 to 5, and we know medically, that after a mother gives birth to a child, the post-partal period, it is unhygienic. To say it is ‘unclean’, Religiously - I have got no objection. But Leviticus, Ch. No.12 Verse No.1 to 5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. It she give birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days. I would like any Christian to explain to me scientifically, how come a woman remains unclean for double the period, if she gives birth to a female child, as compared to a male child.

13. The Bible also has a very good test for adultery - How to come to know a woman has committed adultery, in the book of Numbers, Ch. no.5 Verse No..11 to 31. I’ll just say in brief. It says that… ‘The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed. A novel method of identifying whether a woman has committed adultery or not. How unscientific!

 

[Truthmatters]

Why will none here answer the question.

Is Science superior to myth?

 

[Jarhead]

Common Sense...

Your discussion about Genesis is quite valid...but you need to understand that Genesis was written based on many assumptions as there was lack of scientific knowledge at the time.

My debate had to do with much of the history found in the Bible and as part of history.

Overall, much of the Bible is folklore (for lack of a better word...I will not refer to it as myth as it warrants more respect). But there are many that do not believe in God and use science to try to disporve God's existance..many times saying "that is impossible".....

But as time goes on, much of the impossible is proving to be possible.

So as I said earlier...who are we to deny them their beliefs?

And again, I am not a religious man. I beleve in evolution and the big bang theory.

I believe there is ample proof that evolution and the big bang theory are the answers.....but as I said earlier....3 months ago I would have said Oxygen is mandatory for all life to exist.

 

[Common Sense]

OK...my error.
I should have used the "laws of science"....or perhaps I should have defined each action such as "a tsunami" or "clay from the mountains painting the water red"....but we are adults and I assumed you would not play semantics with me....and I assume you will not play that game again with me.

Religion does not keep changing its tune. Those that do not believe in the Bible put peoiple in a position to defend it. So yes, when "science" implies something can not happen, defenders fall back on "an act of God"...UNTIL "science" is then found to prove that it could have happened "scientifically."...

For example, until about a month ago, it was believed that all life ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE must have certain elements to exist. ANd yet, we discovered life on our own planet that does NOT require such elements....knowledge of what is possible is always increasing.

And I disagree....it is not up to one to prove that Adam and Eve existed.....the belief they existed came fisrt. It is up to you or someone to prove that they didnt exist.

Nice civil debate....enjoying it....but please dont play the semantics game...iot gets us nowhere.

And by the way...I am not a religious man by any means...but I have studies to learn why religious people feel as they do.

I am not a liberal by any means...but I continually like to debate those that are liberal so I can understand why they feel as they do.

i wasnt playing semantics, i was simply stating that you thought god could apply science, which is untrue. everything in the bible is based upon a faith. a blind faith in believing something that can not be proven to be true.

most everything in the bible is based on acts of god. his creation of the world, the 10 commandments, the great flood, the 10 plagues. but when science goes on to prove that these things were not actual acts of god, but either occurrences in natural or simply impossibilities, then religion changes it tune and says, well since god created the world, he created the science behind it. which was never an argument before science came about and disproved the theory.

and yes you have to prove that adam and eve existed. you can only prove that things existed in nature. you can hypothosize about that things that you think have existed, (say things like bacteria, or viruses, or infrared & ultraviolet light, gases, atoms, etc etc) but until you can prove that they existed by using science, then they simply dont exist. just like anti-matter, and higgs bosom particle. they have been hypothesized to exist, but have not been proven yet. the burdon lies with those making the claim to prove that the claim is true.

 

[Common Sense]

Why will none here answer the question.

Is Science superior to myth?

you can not compare science and myth, since myths can not be proven to be true. they are simply stories.

you can say tho that science is more factual than faith. because faith takes into account the idea in believing something without proof.

 

[Nosmo King]

"We are holier than thou!" sayeth the Conservatives.

Another clumsy attempt to deflect the flaws in their ideology. By casting aspersions on their political opposition, the Conservatives figure they can keep flaws like their inherent greed and sense of self righteousness under wraps.

And the aspersions they cast are not political or policy aspersions. They are moral and ethical ones. Yet another glass house for the Conservatives to live in.

Glass houses like complaining about President Obama's seeming lack of ability to communicate without a teleprompter. Did they listen to George W. Bush at all?

Glass houses like saying this federal budget will sink the republic. Did they audit budgets from 2001 to 2009?

A weak premise for a weaker ideology. Everything fits, in the barren mind of the modern Conservative.

No Nosmo...we do nto say we are hlier than thou.

We strive to be holier than thou...and do our best to acheive it.

So you would deny the premise of this clumsy thread?

 

[Newby]

wait wait wait, god can not apply science. no one can apply science. science is defined as a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. it is a study not an application of will or god. since god is based on faith, he can not be proven or will ever be proven to exist. (hence why it is a leap of faith) on the other hand, science may one day actual disprove that he exists. (see the god particle here: Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

religion keeps changing its tune, everything time science is able to disprove something in the bible as an "act of god". just like everything you listed.

as for adam and eve, and your line "and there is no evidence they did NOT exist." how do you prove that something doesnt exist? its the other way around, you have to prove that something exists otherwise it simply does not. i can claim there is intelligent human beings on other planets, but until i can prove that they exist, they then claim is simply false. just like adam and eve. until you can prove that they existed scientifically, then they simply did not.

What has science disproven that is in the Bible?

hmmm lets start with the ability to walk on water for one...
but heres a few more:

1. Astronomy: First we deal with Astronomy., The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days.

2. The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day? - It is unscientific.

3. Further, the, Bible says Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses 9 to 13… ‘Earth was created on the 3rd day. How can you have a night and day without the earth ? The day depends upon the rotation of the Earth Without the earth created, how can you have a night and day?

4. Genesis, Ch. No. 1 Verses 9 to 13 says… ‘Earth was created on the third day.’ Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses 14 to 19 says…‘The Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day.’ Today science tells us… ‘Earth is part of the parent body… the sun.’ It cannot come into existence before the sun – It is unscientific.

5. The Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No. 11 to 13…‘The vegetation, the herbs the shrubs, the trees - they were created on the 3rd day And the Sun, Genesis, Ch. No. 1, Verses. 14 to 19, was created on the 4th day.How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight ?

6. The Bible says in Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses No.16, that…‘God created two lights the greater light, the Sun to rule the day, and the lesser light the Moon, to rule the night. The actual translation, if you go to the Hebrew text, it is ‘lamps’…‘Lamps having lights of its own.’ And that you will come to know better, if you read both the Verses – Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse. 16, as well as 17. Verse No.17 says…‘And Almighty God placed them in the firmament, to give light to the earth… To give light to the earth.’ Indicating, that Sun and the Moon has its own light - which is in contradiction with established scientific knowledge that we have.

7.It is mentioned in the Bible, in the book of Hebrews, Ch. No.1 Verses No.10 and 11, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.102, Verse No.25 and 26, that…‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, and they will perish.’ Exactly opposite is mentioned in the book of Ecclesiastics, Ch. No.1, Verse No.4, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.78, Verse No.69, that… ‘The earth will abide forever.’ Which will take place? The Earth will perish or abide forever? The both can't take place. It's unscientific!

8. In the field of ‘Diet and Nutrition’ lets analyse, what does the Bible say. The Bible says in the book of Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No.29, that… ‘God has given you all the herbs bearing seeds, the trees bearing fruits - those that bear seed, as meat for you.’ New International Version says… ‘The seed bearing plants, and the trees bearing fruits bearing seeds are food for you, all of them.’ Today, even a layman knows that there are several poisonous plants like wild berries, stritchi, datura, plants containing alkaloid, polyander, bacaipoid - that which if you ingest, if you eat there are high possibilities you may die. How come the Creator of the universe and the human beings, does not know, that if you have these plants, you will die.

9. he Bible has a scientific test how to identify a true believer. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, Ch. No.16, Verse No.17 and 18 - It says that… ‘There will be signs for true believers and among the signs - In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak foreign tongues, new tongues, they shall take up serpents - And if they drink deadly poison, they shall not be harmed - And when they place their hand over the sick, they shall be cured.’ This is a scientific test - In scientific terminology, it is known as the ‘confirmatory test’ for a true Christian believer. There has not been a single true believing Christian that has ever passed this test, because no one's willing to even try.

10. What does the Bible say regarding ‘Hydrology’? Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.9, Verse No.13 to 17, that… ‘After God, at the time of Noah submerged the world by flood, and after the flood’ subsided, He said… ‘I put up a rainbow in the sky as a promise to the humankind never to submerge the world again, by water. To the unscientific person it may be quite good… ‘Oh rainbow is a sign of Almighty God, never to submerge the world by flood again.’ But today we know very well, that rainbow is due to the refraction of sunlight, with rain or mist. Surely there must have been thousands of rainbows before the time of Noah, peace be upon him. To say it was not there before Noah’s time you have to assume that the law of refraction did not exist - which is unscientific.

11. In the field of medicine, the Bible says in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.14, Verse No.49 to 53 - it gives a novel way for disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy… disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy. It says that… ‘Take two birds, kill one bird, take wood, scale it - and the other living bird, dip it in water… and under running water - later on sprinkle the house 7 times with it. Sprinkle the house with blood to disinfect against plague of leprosy? You know blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, as well as toxins! Unscientific!

12. It is mentioned in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.12, Verse No.1 to 5, and we know medically, that after a mother gives birth to a child, the post-partal period, it is unhygienic. To say it is ‘unclean’, Religiously - I have got no objection. But Leviticus, Ch. No.12 Verse No.1 to 5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. It she give birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days. I would like any Christian to explain to me scientifically, how come a woman remains unclean for double the period, if she gives birth to a female child, as compared to a male child.

13. The Bible also has a very good test for adultery - How to come to know a woman has committed adultery, in the book of Numbers, Ch. no.5 Verse No..11 to 31. I’ll just say in brief. It says that… ‘The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed. A novel method of identifying whether a woman has committed adultery or not. How unscientific!

But, if one believes that God created the universe, everything else you just listed is ridiculous, is it not? And let's say for one moment that you would believe that a higher power created the universe, do you really belive that the human mind would be capable of explaining it in it's entirety then?

 

[M14 Shooter]

hmmm lets start with the ability to walk on water for one...

All kind sof things walk on water, and so, under the proper conditions, there's no reason to think a person could not as well.

Not sure where you copied this list from, but whoever wrote it is not as clever as you think he is.

1. Astronomy: First we deal with Astronomy., The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days.

This can only begin to be valid if you take the 6-day creation event literally and in human terms. How long is one of God's days?

2. The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day? - It is unscientific.

This presumes that the only possible source of light are stars.
Do you suppose there was no light released on the big bang?

3. Further, the, Bible says Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses 9 to 13… ‘Earth was created on the 3rd day. How can you have a night and day without the earth ? The day depends upon the rotation of the Earth Without the earth created, how can you have a night and day?

You again take this literally, with an erroneously earth-bound perspective.
Dont you suppose night/day might refer to dark/light?
Can these not exist w/o the Earth?
Remember that Creation is told from God's perspective, not man's.

4. Genesis, Ch. No. 1 Verses 9 to 13 says… ‘Earth was created on the third day.’ Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses 14 to 19 says…‘The Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day.’ Today science tells us… ‘Earth is part of the parent body… the sun.’ It cannot come into existence before the sun – It is unscientific.

There's nothing in science that necessitates a system's star must ignite before any of its attending planets are created.

5. The Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No. 11 to 13…‘The vegetation, the herbs the shrubs, the trees - they were created on the 3rd day And the Sun, Genesis, Ch. No. 1, Verses. 14 to 19, was created on the 4th day.How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight ?

You presuppose that the vegitation referenced here is of the same kind we have today.
And, aside from that, if you look into the depths of the oceans, you'll find plant life that does not require the sun.

7.It is mentioned in the Bible, in the book of Hebrews, Ch. No.1 Verses No.10 and 11, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.102, Verse No.25 and 26, that…‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, and they will perish.’ Exactly opposite is mentioned in the book of Ecclesiastics, Ch. No.1, Verse No.4, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.78, Verse No.69, that… ‘The earth will abide forever.’ Which will take place? The Earth will perish or abide forever? The both can't take place. It's unscientific!

Its not unscientific, its a contradiction.

8. In the field of ‘Diet and Nutrition’ lets analyse, what does the Bible say. The Bible says in the book of Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No.29, that… ‘God has given you all the herbs bearing seeds, the trees bearing fruits - those that bear seed, as meat for you.’ New International Version says… ‘The seed bearing plants, and the trees bearing fruits bearing seeds are food for you, all of them.’ Today, even a layman knows that there are several poisonous plants like wild berries, stritchi, datura, plants containing alkaloid, polyander, bacaipoid - that which if you ingest, if you eat there are high possibilities you may die. How come the Creator of the universe and the human beings, does not know, that if you have these plants, you will die.

Presuming that you want to take the passage to mean that ALL of the herbs, berries, etc, are foc consumption, you then need to rule out the possibility that, some time ago, people were able to eat these things. That we cannot now only means that we cannot not, it doesnt mean that we could not, previously.

9. he Bible has a scientific test how to identify a true believer. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, Ch. No.16, Verse No.17 and 18 - It says that… ‘There will be signs for true believers and among the signs - In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak foreign tongues, new tongues, they shall take up serpents - And if they drink deadly poison, they shall not be harmed - And when they place their hand over the sick, they shall be cured.’ This is a scientific test - In scientific terminology, it is known as the ‘confirmatory test’ for a true Christian believer. There has not been a single true believing Christian that has ever passed this test, because no one's willing to even try.

False premise. That no one has passed the test only means that no one has passed. Given the terms, failing the test indicates that you are not a true believer; that you may believe yourself to be doe snot indeed make you so.

10. What does the Bible say regarding ‘Hydrology’? Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.9, Verse No.13 to 17, that… ‘After God, at the time of Noah submerged the world by flood, and after the flood’ subsided, He said… ‘I put up a rainbow in the sky as a promise to the humankind never to submerge the world again, by water. To the unscientific person it may be quite good… ‘Oh rainbow is a sign of Almighty God, never to submerge the world by flood again.’ But today we know very well, that rainbow is due to the refraction of sunlight, with rain or mist. Surely there must have been thousands of rainbows before the time of Noah, peace be upon him. To say it was not there before Noah’s time you have to assume that the law of refraction did not exist - which is unscientific.

Not sure how this is supposed to prove anything.
Nothing states that there had never been a rainbow before the great flood and nothing in the statement that God put forth a rainbow precludes that rainbow haveing been due to the refraction of light through water.

12. It is mentioned in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.12, Verse No.1 to 5, and we know medically, that after a mother gives birth to a child, the post-partal period, it is unhygienic. To say it is ‘unclean’, Religiously - I have got no objection. But Leviticus, Ch. No.12 Verse No.1 to 5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. It she give birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days. I would like any Christian to explain to me scientifically, how come a woman remains unclean for double the period, if she gives birth to a female child, as compared to a male child.

Define "unclean".

13. The Bible also has a very good test for adultery - How to come to know a woman has committed adultery, in the book of Numbers, Ch. no.5 Verse No..11 to 31. I’ll just say in brief. It says that… ‘The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed. A novel method of identifying whether a woman has committed adultery or not. How unscientific!

Have you tried it? On a woman that has committed adultry, that is privy to this test, and believes in the bible?

 

[Jarhead]

"We are holier than thou!" sayeth the Conservatives.

Another clumsy attempt to deflect the flaws in their ideology. By casting aspersions on their political opposition, the Conservatives figure they can keep flaws like their inherent greed and sense of self righteousness under wraps.

And the aspersions they cast are not political or policy aspersions. They are moral and ethical ones. Yet another glass house for the Conservatives to live in.

Glass houses like complaining about President Obama's seeming lack of ability to communicate without a teleprompter. Did they listen to George W. Bush at all?

Glass houses like saying this federal budget will sink the republic. Did they audit budgets from 2001 to 2009?

A weak premise for a weaker ideology. Everything fits, in the barren mind of the modern Conservative.

No Nosmo...we do nto say we are hlier than thou.

We strive to be holier than thou...and do our best to acheive it.

So you would deny the premise of this clumsy thread?

No...I agree with it and that is why I responded to what you said.

Thinking that we believe we are holier than thou is the problem.

We do not...we will make mistakes. We will deviate from our beleifs...but it does not mean we are not striving to be the epitome.

But, alas, we are human....but the epitome is our goal, Not who we are....what we strive to be.

You take it that we feel it is who we are so if we prove otherwise, you crucify us for it.

 

[Common Sense]

see like i said, you keep changing your tune.

everything that i listed is able to be proven by science without any leap of faith. you need a leap of faith in order ot justify all your arguments.

when i said you can disprove god exists do you even know the higgs boson particle is? this is particle that bestows mass on all other particles. in laymen terms, if its discovered, its the source of being able to create something out of nothing. hence we can go back to the big bang theory when the universe was created. the question goes, how did something suddenly appear out of nothing. well if you can replicate being able to create something out of nothing, does this not trump the creation idea that god created the universe out of nothing? if man can create mass, is he not the same as your so called god? that is how you can disprove that god exists. you can go back to the original premise that god created the universe, instead of the universe creating itself. that is until religion changes its tune again and say got created the higgs boson particle....

prove to me that god exists? scientifically speaking...

 

[Nosmo King]

No Nosmo...we do nto say we are hlier than thou.

We strive to be holier than thou...and do our best to acheive it.

So you would deny the premise of this clumsy thread?

No...I agree with it and that is why I responded to what you said.

Thinking that we believe we are holier than thou is the problem.

We do not...we will make mistakes. We will deviate from our beleifs...but it does not mean we are not striving to be the epitome.

But, alas, we are human....but the epitome is our goal, Not who we are....what we strive to be.

You take it that we feel it is who we are so if we prove otherwise, you crucify us for it.

It's when Conservatives bear a standard they feel is appropriate for the country and then prove that they themselves are not up to it. That's when the justifiable calls of hypocrisy begin.

And yet, today, here on this thread, Conservatives invoke the word "Chappaquiddick" the way Aladdin invokes "Open Sesame". A magical word to rub in the noses of Liberals. A 'crucifixion', if you will.

All this while Conservatives solicit sex in airport restrooms and send salacious texts to under-aged Congressional pages. All this while Conservatives sell the notion that homosexuals will disrupt the military like a bag of snakes can disrupt a commercial flight. That a frozen zygote in a petri dish is a human being. That it's a perfectly acceptable tactic to harass and harangue a teenage girl as she seeks help from Planned Parenthood.