Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I made none of those claims. You made them up , precisely because you are an intellectual sissy steeped in absurd, magical thinking who invents low hanging fruit to play with.No, but thanks for asking!Arent you the one who claimed there must be extraterrestrial life because we have no evidence of extraterrestrial life therefore it is scientifically proven that there is extraterrestrial life?
No, but thanks for asking!Or were you the one who denied life only started once because there is no evidence life started more than once?
Sure you did. You pretended to advance a scientific mindset then resorted to your “intuition”.
Life on earth started once by any and all evidence. That is science.
Your intuition that life started more than once is not science. It is fantasy. Same with your fantasies of extraterrestrial life.
Then you are acting a fool, because it is clear that I am referring to your supernatural claims, to which your are 100% beholden.Magical thinking being this statement of fact I suppose?
Then you are acting a fool, because it is clear that I am referring to your supernatural claims, to which your are 100% beholden.Magical thinking being this statement of fact I suppose?
I wasn't disagreeing with the statement you keep posting like a damn parrot. You want to insist that I was, because you are playng your little game.I made a statement of scientific fact.
Life started once so far as science knows.
I wasn't disagreeing with the statement you keep posting like a damn parrot. You want to insist that I was, because you are playng your little game.I made a statement of scientific fact.
Life started once so far as science knows.
You mean, as far as we know. Science doesn't "know things". Nitpicky, yes, but an important distinction nonetheless.
Buy it....you didnt corner me...you whined like that I was dsagreeing with a statement with which I actually agreed...now you are nonplussed.I wasn't disagreeing with the statement you keep posting like a damn parrot. You want to insist that I was, because you are playng your little game.I made a statement of scientific fact.
Life started once so far as science knows.
You mean, as far as we know. Science doesn't "know things". Nitpicky, yes, but an important distinction nonetheless.
Nope. The nitpicking of a cornered pedant.
Here...I’ll through sum spellin errers in for you. Have fun.
Shaman DOTR has spoken!Life’s origin was a singular, mysterious event in the universe. There are implications to that fact. Live with it. Or don’t.
Theories fail when evidence shows them to be in error. Theories also fail when evidence that should exist to support the theory does not exist. The theory of evolution contains many such failures.It's called a theory for a good reason, dumb deer
As Stephen Hawking says, it's impossible to ever prove a scientific theory so there aren't really any scientific laws only theories that become more accepted as more evidence is found to support it
Religion doesn't require proof, just faith
EVERY place? Are you sure about that? And we relied SOLELY on the bible for some of these places?Every place that has been described in the Bible has been found. Places that modern archaeologists had no idea about were found when they were looked for.
Really?
And your post doesn't really address the myriad inaccuracies found in the Bible, now does it? Even getting 60% right on a test is a miserable fail, you know.
"My bias": The list of the many historical inaccuracies found in the bible is not "opinion". Those are facts, as much as facts can be known. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I had for breakfast today. That was a lame ad hominem on your part. If any bias is here to be detected, it's in the person claiming some sort of 'notable accuracy' in the face of so man facts to the contrary. That would be you... again, as the facts demonstrate. No opinions required there, friend.
Or,....Science: A Witness Attesting To Biblical Accuracy
Science is the collection of correct knowledge. Whether it is 'correct' is determined via empirical data, and the scientific method.
The historical accuracy of the Bible is proven by the science of archaeology....and, the, astounding as it is, the modern views of cosmology, the study of the origin of the universe, also verifies the Bible.
I'll get to that....
First.....the reason this post is necessary: the political milieu.
1.To be an adherent to the various iterations of the Left....Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, or Nazism....one must engage in a full court press against the Bible, and against religion.
Here's the view:
a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky,
Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY
Here's the reason for the view:
b. "There is no God
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.
The Schwarz Report | Essays
Most scientists believe in God.
2. One of the oblique attacks is by atheistic/Marxist academics....many are referred to as 'historians'....who make a career out of attacks on the historicity of the Bible. The subtext is that if events in the Bible can be cast as false, well....perhaps the less astute would agree with the Left that the rules for life must be as well.
Archaeology, though has often sunk that boat.
As in this case: King Belshazzar.
"Of all the books of the Bible, perhaps none has suffered so many attacks from the historical critical school as the Book of Daniel. Virtually every story in the book has been derided as a fanciful post-Exile invention."
The Belshazzar Problem
This, for example:
"Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his nobles: and every one drank according to his age" (Dan. 5:1).
"And being now drunk he commanded that they should bring the vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had brought away out of the temple" (Dan. 5:2).
"That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain. And Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom" (Dan. 5:31).
So....according to the Bible, Belshazzar was King of Babylonians, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was killed by the Persians.
a. "Since the 19th century, some historians such as Robert Dick Wilson and W. H. Stevenson have disputed Belshazzar's reign as a king."
Belshazzar - Wikipedia
So....short of calling 'GhostBusters,' who ya' gonna believe?
I'll answer that next.
As a book of "science" it lacks credibility.. However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite good.
Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
Oh? Moses only wandered in the desert? What about his life in Egypt before that? The Bible was written by men. That is why there are conflicting viewpoints within the book. It is not the unerring word of God. If it were there would be no conflict within the work. The Bible as it is now presented was further a consensus where the later church men chose which books to include within the book. That happened around the year 800 IIRC.
As I said, the Old Testament is a remarkably accurate presentation of ancient history. Wherever archaeologists have checked the ground where the Bible says something happened, they have found evidence to support the Bible. I find that truly astounding. In the realm of science though, with one exception, the Bible is not an accurate presentation of what we now know to be factual.
That one exception is the creation of the Universe. In that one area the bible and the cosmologists are remarkably consistent. In the beginning there was nothing.....And then there was light. According to the religious folks the light was created by God. According to the cosmologists that light was the spontaneous "creation" of the universe from a singularity the size of a proton.
Both models are faith based. A God created everything, or all matter in the entire universe sprang forth from a point the size of one half of an atoms nucleus.
Eden's been found, huh?In what way? It is rife with historical inaccuracies, and any true information in it is only know to be turue because it can be found in other, better sources. That doesn't make it good at all, much less "quite good".However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite
Let's put it another way: if you were forced to take a test on the human history of the bronze age middle east, and the only source afforded to you was the Bible, you would fail that test in spectacular fashion.
Every place that has been described in the Bible has been found. Places that modern archaeologists had no idea about were found when they were looked for. You allow you bias to color your opinion. That is stupid.
Eden's been found, huh?In what way? It is rife with historical inaccuracies, and any true information in it is only know to be turue because it can be found in other, better sources. That doesn't make it good at all, much less "quite good".However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite
Let's put it another way: if you were forced to take a test on the human history of the bronze age middle east, and the only source afforded to you was the Bible, you would fail that test in spectacular fashion.
Every place that has been described in the Bible has been found. Places that modern archaeologists had no idea about were found when they were looked for. You allow you bias to color your opinion. That is stupid.
Eden's been found, huh?In what way? It is rife with historical inaccuracies, and any true information in it is only know to be turue because it can be found in other, better sources. That doesn't make it good at all, much less "quite good".However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite
Let's put it another way: if you were forced to take a test on the human history of the bronze age middle east, and the only source afforded to you was the Bible, you would fail that test in spectacular fashion.
Every place that has been described in the Bible has been found. Places that modern archaeologists had no idea about were found when they were looked for. You allow you bias to color your opinion. That is stupid.
Butt you didn't say it was a "quite good" map, you said it was a quite good history book. You still have a lot of explaining to do. Because,. frankly, it is rife with historical inaccuracies.Pretty much every place in the Bible that is checked, yes.
"they" think they know where Eden is? Are you joking?Eden's been found, huh?In what way? It is rife with historical inaccuracies, and any true information in it is only know to be turue because it can be found in other, better sources. That doesn't make it good at all, much less "quite good".However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite
Let's put it another way: if you were forced to take a test on the human history of the bronze age middle east, and the only source afforded to you was the Bible, you would fail that test in spectacular fashion.
Every place that has been described in the Bible has been found. Places that modern archaeologists had no idea about were found when they were looked for. You allow you bias to color your opinion. That is stupid.
Actually they think they may have an idea of where it might be. Beneath a UNESCO World Heritage Site in southern Iraq. Of course it is christian scholars who believe it, but their evidence is pretty compelling. Especially how the rivers converge as described in the Bible. The problem is the site is under water now.
Butt you didn't say it was a "quite good" map, you said it was a quite good history book. You still have a lot of explaining to do. Because,. frankly, it is rife with historical inaccuracies.Pretty much every place in the Bible that is checked, yes.
"they" think they know where Eden is? Are you joking?Eden's been found, huh?In what way? It is rife with historical inaccuracies, and any true information in it is only know to be turue because it can be found in other, better sources. That doesn't make it good at all, much less "quite good".However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite
Let's put it another way: if you were forced to take a test on the human history of the bronze age middle east, and the only source afforded to you was the Bible, you would fail that test in spectacular fashion.
Every place that has been described in the Bible has been found. Places that modern archaeologists had no idea about were found when they were looked for. You allow you bias to color your opinion. That is stupid.
Actually they think they may have an idea of where it might be. Beneath a UNESCO World Heritage Site in southern Iraq. Of course it is christian scholars who believe it, but their evidence is pretty compelling. Especially how the rivers converge as described in the Bible. The problem is the site is under water now.
1) Kings David and Solomon and their kingdom... utter bullshitButt you didn't say it was a "quite good" map, you said it was a quite good history book. You still have a lot of explaining to do. Because,. frankly, it is rife with historical inaccuracies.Pretty much every place in the Bible that is checked, yes.
Name three.
So do other places. Let me guess... there is also soil and air and some plants there, as predicted? Pfft...The bottom of the Persian Gulf has a confluence of rivers just as described in the Bible.
