Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[james bond]

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

And let's look at archaeology, shall we? A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories. And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.

The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references. The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC. Their five cities mentioned in the Bible - Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.

Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:

Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:

You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".

What an embarrassing display....

If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven. The Resurrection would've been disproven. It has withstood the test of time. The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.

LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?

How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?

I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.

As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.

I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest

Insects have 6 legs

We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible. What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss? There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories.

You're referring to Leviticus 11:20-21 "All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest."
Flying insects that walk on all fours would refer to for example the grasshopper as stated.



We see that it has six legs, but the two hind legs aren't considered for walking but hopping as stated. It walks on the four front legs.

 

[Political Junky]

The Bible has never been disproven in any way

You are embarrassing yourself.

Has Science Disproved God?

Has science proved God?

Science just has best theories. Not proofs. Creation science has some great theories about God.

LOL, the Bible offers no proof of anything.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I trying to point out that you are neither the son of a monkey or an ape ---

Which is moronic of you to say in a discussion of evolution, since nobody claimed or believes that. So, basically, you have absolutely nothing of value to add.

 

[Syriusly]

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

And let's look at archaeology, shall we? A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories. And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.

The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references. The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC. Their five cities mentioned in the Bible - Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.

Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:

Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:

You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".

What an embarrassing display....

If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven. The Resurrection would've been disproven. It has withstood the test of time. The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.

LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?

How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?

I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.

As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.

I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest

Insects have 6 legs

We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible. What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss? There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories..

You were the one who claimed that if 'there was any BS the Bible would have been disproven'- then disprove Aesop's Fables. Go for it.

If you can't disprove Aesop's Fables- then by your bizarre logic- that means Aesops Fables must be true.

 

[Syriusly]

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

And let's look at archaeology, shall we? A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories. And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.

The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references. The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC. Their five cities mentioned in the Bible - Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.

Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:

Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:

You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".

What an embarrassing display....

If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven. The Resurrection would've been disproven. It has withstood the test of time. The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.

LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?

How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?

I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.

As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.

I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest

Insects have 6 legs

We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible. What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss? There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories.

You're referring to Leviticus 11:20-21 "All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.
Flying insects that walk on all fours would refer to for example the grasshopper as stated.



We see that it has six legs, but the two hind legs aren't considered for walking but hopping as stated. It walks on the four front legs.

Tell me all about these:
But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest

What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
Bats? 2 legs
Birds? 2 legs
Insects? 6 legs

 

[Syriusly]

The Bible has never been disproven in any way

You are embarrassing yourself.

Has Science Disproved God?

Stop trying to change the subject. Those charlatan tactics are for fooling people in church and for fooling children. They won't work here.

I'm Not... I trying to point out that you are neither the son of a monkey or an ape --- even if you maybe look and act the part. The biggest fool is the one who doesn't see GOD in anything --- including himself.

And you are not the son of god even though you seem to think yourself so.

Only anti-evo cultists keep shouting 'we are not descended from monkeys' and all of us who support science go 'duh- of course we aren't- that is as stupid as claiming that everything on earth was created in 6 days'

 

[Syriusly]

There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.

I think people have a misconception of science. What is fact is the evidence (unless it's been doctored or is misinterpreted as evidence). We derive science based on our observations, beliefs and worldviews. In other words, science and religion are both sides of the same coin. It's about what is the truth..

We derive science from our observations, from experimentation and from the facts.

The difference between science and 'religion'- by which you really mean Christianity- and not just Christianity but that bizarre branch of Christianity which insists that the Bible must be literally true- is that science starts from a position that we do not know everything- and will never know everything, but we can continually learn from everything.

Creationists like yourself believe that everything in the Bible must be correct- and look to 'science' just as a tool to justify your beliefs.

The difference between yourself and myself- is if 'science' tomorrow came up with strong evidence that the world was indeed formed in less than a week- and that earth actually was created before the sun- I would go with the evidence.

You will always go with the Bible- not the evidence.

No we do not look to science to justify our beliefs. To the contrary, we find science honors the work of God. If you could have an open mind and see how great God's works is, then you'd have faith. Faith is the first step to understanding. Not the other way around. We see that science backs up the Bible, and thus we build faith upon the inerrancy of the Bible.

As for going by the evidence, evolution is based on fitting the evidence to the theory. Not the other way around. .

Sigh- doesn't your Bible say something disapproving about bearing false witness?

In Darwin's first publication about 'evolution', he based the theory on the evidence he had observed.

Since then science has tested the theory he proposed- and mostly it has been correct- but sure- Darwin got some stuff wrong- and guess what- when the evidence doesn't fit the theory- then the theory then has to be corrected- and is.

The difference between science and your belief in the Bible is conveyed by your own words:

The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.

No scientists will ever say that about any scientific theory or anything else about science- because science assumes that we do not know everything about science- while you presume that the Bible is inerrant, accurate, auuthoritative, true and complete.

Since it is 'complete'- you look only for what validates what you consider to be 'Biblical'- not for answers.

A scientist doesn't consider himself GOD --------------- HOPEFULLY. The problem is that evolutionists do not try to validate that GOD doesn't exist and they seem incapable of generating a new species. Seriously, they believe all the species developed randomly on their own ---- but with thoughtful prodding and tinkering over many decades, they have nothing ---- no new separate species... Dogs remain dogs. Cats remain cats. And even woolly mammoths and saber tooth tigers seem superior to what we now have. But the tiger is still a tiger. Or could a tiger become a saber tooth if he lived 400 years or 600 years... Can you prove that they wouldn't? The sad issue is that I don't imagine you even care..................

The sad part is your absolute ignorance about evolution.

Why would a tiger become a saber tooth cat? Saber tooth cats are extinct- their genes gone forever- possibly descendants of tigers could evolve eventually into species similar to saber tooth cats- or not.

No- I don't really care about why you can't understand why a Tiger will not make a saber tooth cat in 400 years.

 

[Syriusly]

Is Darwinism indeed scientific fact or a belief based on naturalism 9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False | Humans Are Free

'Darwinism'? LOL

The Theory of Evolution is a theory that best fits the evidence we have.

Christian creation beliefs are myths that do not fit any of the evidence we have.

 

[Syriusly]

If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.

It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.

I don't know what rock you've been hiding under but you obviously never read anything but comic books and watch Japanese Anime. The Bible has never been disproven in any way. Disputed maybe, but that is true of anything.

OMG

It's not just OMG, but about the afterlife. I think what's been strongly argued against is that humans evolved from monkeys.].

Feel free to believe in an afterlife. I certainly don't care- science will never be able to 'disprove' that it exists- but it isn't science to believe in it- it is faith.

Everyone argues against humans evolving from monkeys- both you CreatoChristian cultists- and those who believe in science.

No one- no one is arguing that humans evolved from monkeys.

 

[Syriusly]

The Bible has never been disproven in any way

You are embarrassing yourself.

Has Science Disproved God?

Has science proved God?

Science just has best theories. Not proofs. Creation science has some great theories about God.

'Creation science' lol

like 'holistic car mechanics'

 

[Syriusly]

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?

Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.

lol

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

First day light came from EMS.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

Correct.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

The Earth was covered with water vapor and water. This was the first day. He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day..

I went back and checked- Here is the quote again- where is the reference to 'water vapor'?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.


3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Nothing but crickets from the CreatoChristian cultists.

 

[Syriusly]

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?

Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.

lol

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

First day light came from EMS.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

Correct.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

The Earth was covered with water vapor and water. This was the first day. He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

Day and night was created on the first day. Plants was on the third day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?

Nothing but crickets. Not surprised.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the conclusion that the earth formed before the sun- let alone 3 days before the sun- or even how you would know what a day is without a sun with an earth in orbit around it.

There is absolutely no evidence that any life existed before the sun existed- yet the Bible claims vegetation did.

It is one thing for the Creato-Cultists to claim that their Bible is inerrant and infallible- and then point to mistakes science has made- but they studiously avoid how Genesis 1 violates everything that science has taught us about the solar system, life on earth and physics.

 

[james bond]

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

And let's look at archaeology, shall we? A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories. And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.

The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references. The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC. Their five cities mentioned in the Bible - Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.

Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:

Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:

You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".

What an embarrassing display....

If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven. The Resurrection would've been disproven. It has withstood the test of time. The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.

LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?

How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?

I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.

As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.

I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest

Insects have 6 legs

We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible. What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss? There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories..

You were the one who claimed that if 'there was any BS the Bible would have been disproven'- then disprove Aesop's Fables. Go for it.

If you can't disprove Aesop's Fables- then by your bizarre logic- that means Aesops Fables must be true.

Let's bet something then like you going to hell after death. If I disprove Aesop's Fables, then you agree to go to hell.

It's like you do not lose anything of value to you, but it gives me a hoot to see you sweat.

 

[LittleNipper]

The Bible has never been disproven in any way

You are embarrassing yourself.

Has Science Disproved God?

Has science proved God?

Science just has best theories. Not proofs. Creation science has some great theories about God.

LOL, the Bible offers no proof of anything.

You're wrong. So very blindly wrong. The Bible clearly demonstrates with examples that various kinds of behavior bring about specific repercussions. Over and over and over the Bible clearly shows to anyone who will read it, that if you do this there is the strong likelihood that this will happen. And if one does that there is the strong likelihood that that will happen. It's not sometimes it happens or in this one case it happened. It will happen That should prove GOD exists. Random meaningless possibilities would indicate chance. Mere chance is proof that the is no GOD. But destiny is the revelation that GOD is a reality. There can be no destiny without HIM!

 

[Syriusly]

Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:

Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:

You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".

What an embarrassing display....

If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven. The Resurrection would've been disproven. It has withstood the test of time. The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.

LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?

How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?

I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.

As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.

I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest

Insects have 6 legs

We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible. What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss? There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories..

You were the one who claimed that if 'there was any BS the Bible would have been disproven'- then disprove Aesop's Fables. Go for it.

If you can't disprove Aesop's Fables- then by your bizarre logic- that means Aesops Fables must be true.

Let's bet something then like you going to hell after death. If I disprove Aesop's Fables, then you agree to go to hell.

It's like you do not lose anything of value to you, but it gives me a hoot to see you sweat.

LOL- according to your Holy Book- I am going to hell after I die because I don't believe in your book of fairy tales or the magical virgin birth.

What i would lose if I pretended to believe in your fairy tales would be my own self respect.

You want to disprove Aesops Fairy tales and believe that would mean I would go to hell- fine with me.

I would prefer you actually answer my questions on Genesis- but I know not to expect real answer from you.

 

[Syriusly]

You are embarrassing yourself.

Has Science Disproved God?

Has science proved God?

Science just has best theories. Not proofs. Creation science has some great theories about God.

LOL, the Bible offers no proof of anything.

You're wrong. So very blindly wrong. The Bible clearly demonstrates with examples that various kinds of behavior bring about specific repercussions. Over and over and over the Bible clearly shows to anyone who will read it, that if you do this there is the strong likelihood that this will happen. And if one does that there is the strong likelihood that that will happen. It's not sometimes it happens or in this one case it happened. It will happen That should prove GOD exists. Random meaningless possibilities would indicate chance. Mere chance is proof that the is no GOD. But destiny is the revelation that GOD is a reality. There can be no destiny without HIM!

LOL- you are welcome to believe your fairy tales- but nothing there has anything to do with science or facts.

 

[LittleNipper]

Is Darwinism indeed scientific fact or a belief based on naturalism 9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False | Humans Are Free

'Darwinism'? LOL

The Theory of Evolution is a theory that best fits the evidence we have.

Christian creation beliefs are myths that do not fit any of the evidence we have.

The FLOOD is not a myth. Sodom and Gomorrah is not a Myth. Nebekenezer is not a myth. Joseph in Egypt is not a myth.The birth of Jesus is not a myth. GOD is not a myth. He is very real. Evolution doesn't fit who we are and what we are.

 

[LittleNipper]

Has Science Disproved God?

Has science proved God?

Science just has best theories. Not proofs. Creation science has some great theories about God.

LOL, the Bible offers no proof of anything.

You're wrong. So very blindly wrong. The Bible clearly demonstrates with examples that various kinds of behavior bring about specific repercussions. Over and over and over the Bible clearly shows to anyone who will read it, that if you do this there is the strong likelihood that this will happen. And if one does that there is the strong likelihood that that will happen. It's not sometimes it happens or in this one case it happened. It will happen That should prove GOD exists. Random meaningless possibilities would indicate chance. Mere chance is proof that the is no GOD. But destiny is the revelation that GOD is a reality. There can be no destiny without HIM!

LOL- you are welcome to believe your fairy tales- but nothing there has anything to do with science or facts.

Nothing to laugh at. More people today are choosing suicide and mass shootings because they are in despair. Despair is the result of rejecting GOD.

 

[james bond]

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?

Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.

lol

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

First day light came from EMS.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

Correct.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

The Earth was covered with water vapor and water. This was the first day. He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day..

I went back and checked- Here is the quote again- where is the reference to 'water vapor'?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.


3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Nothing but crickets from the CreatoChristian cultists.

What is your point? The description is right under your nose.

 

[james bond]

If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.

It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.

I don't know what rock you've been hiding under but you obviously never read anything but comic books and watch Japanese Anime. The Bible has never been disproven in any way. Disputed maybe, but that is true of anything.

OMG

It's not just OMG, but about the afterlife. I think what's been strongly argued against is that humans evolved from monkeys.].

Feel free to believe in an afterlife. I certainly don't care- science will never be able to 'disprove' that it exists- but it isn't science to believe in it- it is faith.

Everyone argues against humans evolving from monkeys- both you CreatoChristian cultists- and those who believe in science.

No one- no one is arguing that humans evolved from monkeys.

I already talked about consciousness, neurology, people returning from the dead and telling us about their experience. They saw things that the people in the room backed up. You keep missing information or does it go into one ear and out the other?

And you believe that we came from monkeys based on faith. The fossil evidence doesn't back it up. It's sadly lacking. Also, your DNA stats do not support anything of the kind.