Darwin vs DNA

[LOki]

You need to wake up,nobody on your side of the debate knows how life began but the bible has made it clear about the creator because you can't prove the creator exists does not prove he doesn't exist.

Your Logical Fallacy is Shifting the Burden of Proof

 

[LOki]

Can you be a little more specific ? Take one of the issues on don't make a blanket statement without anything to back your claim.

The implication you're making here is obvious disinformation. Not at all surprising considering your robust record of intellectual dishonesty.

I have addressed each one of these dopey fallacies for you previously. Shall I provide a link(s)? Just ask.

Yes. Your record of responding with disingenuous evasions is well documented. Shall I provide a link(s)? Just ask.

At least for my part, you get appropriate responses.

Do us both a favor and atleast read your material before you post so I don't have to read it and find out your argument is based on conjecture.

What conjecture? "Don't make a blanket statement without anything to back your claim."

Yes provide these so called links.

Prove my responses are disingenuous.

"So called"? If you weren't so retarded, I wouldn't have expected you to actually ask for this. KLIK HERE

or your record of disingenuosity:

• Here you imply that to be consisten with my assertions, I should have to refute that life creates life ... as if the notion is even at issue.
  
• Here you claim evolutionists assert that the chimpanzee is a genetic ancestor to human beings.
  
• Here you pretend as if "real" science has failed to refute any assertions made in the Bible.
  
• Here you continue to bang "ancestor status of the chimp" drum despite having your misinformation cleared up for you.
  
• Here you just refuse to accept that the article you posted to support your claim (that evolutionists assert that the chimpanzee is a genetic ancestor to human beings), actually refutes it ... and then you suggest your opponent didn't bother to read it.
  
• And your dumb just continued with, "... chimps were in the line of the evolution tree according to your side."
  
• You claim to be educated, yet you posted this.
  
• This is gold. An opportunity for you to firmly put me in my place (if your demonstration that my beliefs are faith actually existed) and you bail like a punk. You knew no such demonstration was posted.
  
• Here you get right back to your retarded "the chimp is our ancestor" thing, but this time you also demonstrate that you just make up these notions about what you say evolutionary scientists assert.
  
• Here you disingenuosly avoid answering a straightforward question by issing a challenge over a point not in contention, and answering a question that wasn't asked.
  
• So I ask my question again. And then I remind you that you are remiss on your response to the question
  
• You, again, answer a question that wasn't asked instead. So, I let you know that you dodge was transparent.
  
• And then when had the opportunity to answer the question, you opted instead to make some shit up. But
• I just won't let you get away with your disingenuous dodging.
  
• And then you make up some more shit. And I'm also happy to point out your bullshit to you.
  
• So you just continue with straight up lying. Can't get much more disingenuos than that. Right?
  
• Wrong. What's more disingenuous, is admitting plainly that your question were actually answered, and in the same breath claim they weren't. NOW THAT'S DISINGENUOUS!
  
• But that wasn't disingenuous enough for you, so you doubled down.
  
• And here you disingenuosly assert a strawman as the premise of your questions for me. Not that I expected to make an impact on your impenetrable dumb,
• I pointed out your error to you any way ... and that you were still disingenuously dodging my questions.
  
• Then you offer yourself this hopeful delusion. LOLsome.
  
• And you continue to dodge answering my questions with this didingenuously offered red-herring. So I remind you about how transparent your tactics are.
  
• Yet you continue to dodge.
  
• And here you disingenuously claim you've been answering the questions asked of you. What a turd.

There's just so much more. Shall I continue? Just ask.

Conjecture is brought out in both of these videos your side has ignored.

Evolution - Considered and Rejected - YouTube

Well, Hebrews 11:3 just makes your accusations about conjecture ENTIRELY RETARDED.

Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution - YouTube

Not to mention that when these guys aren't attacking a strawman, they're just lying. Evidence enough that you're not the only intellectually dishonst superstitious retard trying to sell creationism.

Thank you for sharing these.

I'd like to point out that I don't find it terribly coincidental that you should bury the challenge I made to The Irish Ram under one of your copy/paste vomit piles--seeing as how uncomfortable you are with the similar challenge I made to you.

It's also worth noting your implied admission that your beliefs regarding the subject of evolution have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Uh,....there are human foot prints with dino tracks, I have seen them myself.
2. Boom!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[LOki]

I have given many explanations on mutations and cells in my own words in several different threads here that get ignored where your side resorts to rhetorical responses nothing of substance.

I think its false to claim that you have offered explanations for anything regarding cell biology that wasn't cut and pasted from one of the creationist ministries you cut and paste from.

As we see so often with your cutting and pasting, the crestionist ministries struggle to find some inconsistency with the established biological sciences and herald that as an indictment of the entirety of the science community. It's a common tactic of the creationist crowd. They are unable to adhere to principles of the scientific method and peer review as it relates to substantiating their outrageous claims so they are left with flaccid attempts to discredit science.

Then ask Loki he has seen my arguments if you have not seen them.

Yes I have seen them. But Hollie, you should know this: When Youwerecreated says his explanations get "ignored", that is his disingenuous way of saying his explanations were thoroughly exposed as the disinformation that they so obviously are.

 

[LOki]

Micro-adaptations always ....

--MICRO-ADAPTATION IS A MEANINGLESS TERM SO EVERYTHING PREMISED UPON THE NOTION = SNIPPED

ALSO SNIPPED, YWC'S IGNORANT LECTURE ON BREEDING, AND BENEFICIAL MUTATION--​

Three false assumptions by macro-evolutionist.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.

3. Large spans of time millions of years.

1. Not a false assumption.

2. Not an assumption made by macro-evolutionists

3. Not a false assumption

--MORE OF YWC'S DISINGENUOUS LECTURING SNIPPED--​

Here is the proper theory.

DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I hope you got it this time.

I've got a better one for you:

Micro-Adaptation + Baraminology + Creationism = Retarded Superstition

or how about this one:

Youwerecreated + Evolution + Words = Retarded Strawman Argument

or this:

Strawman + Special-Pleading + Question-Begging + Appeal-To-Ignorance + Disinformation = Youwerecreated's Only Argumentative Tools

Care to respond ?

Yeah. You're still retarded.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I provided evidence of what the bible had borrowed from earlier Greek literature. You are ignoring the obvious similarities.

It is your refusal to accept anything beyond the bounds of your narrow worldview which is disingenuous.

The old Testament predates Greek mythology which prophesied about Jesus and what he would fulfill.

That's quite a stretch. The OT is Hebrew scripture, not Christian.

What else has christianity borrowed from earlier religions?

That's quite a stretch. The OT is Hebrew scripture, not Christian.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The old Testament predates Greek mythology which prophesied about Jesus and what he would fulfill.

That's quite a stretch. The OT is Hebrew scripture, not Christian.

What else has christianity borrowed from earlier religions?

It is rather difficult to explain but Greek mythology predates the completed bible. But the writing of the old testament does predate Greek mythology. You have to understand that the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt before the Greeks came to power. Also the Hebrews were freed from Egypt long before the Greeks fought Egypt and stole all of the Egyptians gods So the writing of the first 5 books of the Old Testament does predate the Greeks and their mythology. But that's a matter of timing, not something holy. Christianity borrows from many different religions and belief systems. It didn't spring wholly formed from some sacred source, it was cobbled together and added to as we went along.
Much like fully half the Bible writings never even made it into the Bible as we know it. It was the ultimate case of cherry-picking. Over the centuries this Holy See or that one decided to try his hand at condensing or out right slashing the Bible. So what we have today is the eqivalent of a script that's been edited for time and ease of reading and, of course , to keep us stupid, superstitious and scared to question, much like our friend YWC here who has obviously bought the whole scam hook line and sinker.

It is rather easy to explain if you do this:
Isaiah 740-681 BC
Aristotle 384-322 BC
Eratosthenes 276-194 BC
Out of the 3 that believed the earth was round, which one came first?


Now to refute the erroneous attack on the validity of the Bible, here is the truth about the Bible being "added to" and "tampered with", and "re-scripted" as we went along.

....... there is no doubt that of all the ancient books, the Bible is in a class to itself, as far as vindication and validation of the text is concerned. There are more manuscripts and external proofs for the books of the Bible than any other book extant. No other book has been rightly subjected to such a rigorous and exacting test for authenticity and, yet, the Bible time and again has not only survived all the tests, but has triumphantly prevailed. Almost two thousand years ago Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24: 35). Again, "Wherefore, Sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me" (Acts 27: 25).

(B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The new Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, pg. 2-3).
The Texts of the Bible
^
Read about it first, then read it, then come and argue your position.

 

[Hollie]

That's quite a stretch. The OT is Hebrew scripture, not Christian.

What else has christianity borrowed from earlier religions?

It is rather difficult to explain but Greek mythology predates the completed bible. But the writing of the old testament does predate Greek mythology. You have to understand that the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt before the Greeks came to power. Also the Hebrews were freed from Egypt long before the Greeks fought Egypt and stole all of the Egyptians gods So the writing of the first 5 books of the Old Testament does predate the Greeks and their mythology. But that's a matter of timing, not something holy. Christianity borrows from many different religions and belief systems. It didn't spring wholly formed from some sacred source, it was cobbled together and added to as we went along.
Much like fully half the Bible writings never even made it into the Bible as we know it. It was the ultimate case of cherry-picking. Over the centuries this Holy See or that one decided to try his hand at condensing or out right slashing the Bible. So what we have today is the eqivalent of a script that's been edited for time and ease of reading and, of course , to keep us stupid, superstitious and scared to question, much like our friend YWC here who has obviously bought the whole scam hook line and sinker.

It is rather easy to explain if you do this:
Isaiah 740-681 BC
Aristotle 384-322 BC
Eratosthenes 276-194 BC
Out of the 3 that believed the earth was round, which one came first?


Now to refute the erroneous attack on the validity of the Bible, here is the truth about the Bible being "added to" and "tampered with", and "re-scripted" as we went along.

....... there is no doubt that of all the ancient books, the Bible is in a class to itself, as far as vindication and validation of the text is concerned. There are more manuscripts and external proofs for the books of the Bible than any other book extant. No other book has been rightly subjected to such a rigorous and exacting test for authenticity and, yet, the Bible time and again has not only survived all the tests, but has triumphantly prevailed. Almost two thousand years ago Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24: 35). Again, "Wherefore, Sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me" (Acts 27: 25).

(B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The new Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, pg. 2-3).
The Texts of the Bible
^
Read about it first, then read it, then come and argue your position.

While the opinions expressed by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort are only their opinions, the factual errors, mis-statements and omissions of the bible speak to something entirely different.

I wouldn’t necessarily see a spiritual work as a barrier to science. But it's true that those who already wish to restrain knowledge, for reasons of pride or willful ignorance, often grasp upon their holy books for an excuse to do precisely that.

The fault doesn't lie with the holy book, but with the reader.

The many centuries that have passed since the compilation of the bible is not so long that spiritual truths go out of date, but grasping upon these texts for detailed knowledge of the natural world is hopeless for anyone looking to expand the boundaries of scientific knowledge.

What I've seen consistently in the kind of article you linked to is a false claim of the bible illuminating science when it's actually the other way around. The interpretations are filled with apologetics for lack of scientific vocabulary in a spiritual work. Well, duh! No, I think these arguments do more harm than good by feeding the ignorance of those who are satisfied with their own lack of training outside religious studies.

They're ridiculously easy to debunk, and having debunked the "science" in a spiritual work, the "spiritual" truths get washed out like a baby with the bathwater. Every time I see a religionist arguing against something as clear as, well, evolution, for instance, it makes me lose respect for their religion.

Yes, yes, while great Hindu philosophers have done even more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist (and Taoist!) philosophers more with chemistry ... and every last one of them has been superseded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers.

The day of the pre-eminent religious/philosophical/scientific polymath has come and gone. I don't call it good or bad. I call it truth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not in the same era, you didn't.

Sorry bout that,

1. Uh,....there are human foot prints with dino tracks, I have seen them myself.
2. Boom!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Not in the same era, you didn't.

Sorry bout that,

1. Uh,....there are human foot prints with dino tracks, I have seen them myself.
2. Boom!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

1. Oh really?
2. Would side by side be considered same era?
3. In the very same layer of river bottom?
4. If it were true, which infact it is, wouldn't that shoot a huge whole in this whole evolution theory?
5. Humans and dinos are not supposed to be anywhere near each other in the evolution sciences right?
6. Supposedly dinos were 500 million or so years before man walked the planet, we supposedly were late bloomers, and self created from dino poop or something like that,....lol!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. Really.
2. If they were actually done in the same era.
3. If they were actually in the same layer.
4. It's not true, because it is a hoax.
5. Correct.
6. You have your understanding all messed up.

Nope, you are not sorry that you are dope.

Sorry bout that,

Not in the same era, you didn't.

Sorry bout that,

1. Uh,....there are human foot prints with dino tracks, I have seen them myself.
2. Boom!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

1. Oh really?
2. Would side by side be considered same era?
3. In the very same layer of river bottom?
4. If it were true, which infact it is, wouldn't that shoot a huge whole in this whole evolution theory?
5. Humans and dinos are not supposed to be anywhere near each other in the evolution sciences right?
6. Supposedly dinos were 500 million or so years before man walked the planet, we supposedly were late bloomers, and self created from dino poop or something like that,....lol!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[percysunshine]

Sorry bout that,

Not in the same era, you didn't.

Sorry bout that,

1. Uh,....there are human foot prints with dino tracks, I have seen them myself.
2. Boom!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

1. Oh really?
2. Would side by side be considered same era?
3. In the very same layer of river bottom?
4. If it were true, which infact it is, wouldn't that shoot a huge whole in this whole evolution theory?
5. Humans and dinos are not supposed to be anywhere near each other in the evolution sciences right?
6. Supposedly dinos were 500 million or so years before man walked the planet, we supposedly were late bloomers, and self created from dino poop or something like that,....lol!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Um, dude...you are chronologicly challenged. That is ok though...

 

[LOki]

Also presented an argument on "mutation fixation" but can't seem to find it.

Why it can't take place but since I can't find it I will provide this article whch pretty much covers my argument.



Please rebuttal this info if you can.

--COPY/PASTE VOMIT PILE SNIPPED--​

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

For the moment, I'm going to limit my rebuttal to just the first of the nine conditions discussed because the errors of thought thoughout the nine are just as obvious as the error(s) of thought in the first.

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

Byles' assertions regarding natural selection are applicable ONLY to harmful mutations. Natural selection tends to FAVOR rather than "work against fixation of mutations" that have adaptive value, and is neutral regarding mutations that are neither valuable or harmful. Saying that natural selection works against advantageous genetics is patently retarded.

And B. Clark is just OBVIOUSLY wrong in his claim that "that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size." It's one of the dumbest assertions I've read outside of baraminology and your Lamarkian "micro-adaptaion" nonsense.

Look Youwerecreated, if you have even a high-school understanding of genetics, and actually read this article, you would not have c/p'd it as anything that is in any way authoritative on any subject of reality.

 

[CandySlice]

That's quite a stretch. The OT is Hebrew scripture, not Christian.

What else has christianity borrowed from earlier religions?

It is rather difficult to explain but Greek mythology predates the completed bible. But the writing of the old testament does predate Greek mythology. You have to understand that the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt before the Greeks came to power. Also the Hebrews were freed from Egypt long before the Greeks fought Egypt and stole all of the Egyptians gods So the writing of the first 5 books of the Old Testament does predate the Greeks and their mythology. But that's a matter of timing, not something holy. Christianity borrows from many different religions and belief systems. It didn't spring wholly formed from some sacred source, it was cobbled together and added to as we went along.
Much like fully half the Bible writings never even made it into the Bible as we know it. It was the ultimate case of cherry-picking. Over the centuries this Holy See or that one decided to try his hand at condensing or out right slashing the Bible. So what we have today is the eqivalent of a script that's been edited for time and ease of reading and, of course , to keep us stupid, superstitious and scared to question, much like our friend YWC here who has obviously bought the whole scam hook line and sinker.

It is rather easy to explain if you do this:
Isaiah 740-681 BC
Aristotle 384-322 BC
Eratosthenes 276-194 BC
Out of the 3 that believed the earth was round, which one came first?


Now to refute the erroneous attack on the validity of the Bible, here is the truth about the Bible being "added to" and "tampered with", and "re-scripted" as we went along.

....... there is no doubt that of all the ancient books, the Bible is in a class to itself, as far as vindication and validation of the text is concerned. There are more manuscripts and external proofs for the books of the Bible than any other book extant. No other book has been rightly subjected to such a rigorous and exacting test for authenticity and, yet, the Bible time and again has not only survived all the tests, but has triumphantly prevailed. Almost two thousand years ago Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24: 35). Again, "Wherefore, Sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me" (Acts 27: 25).

(B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The new Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, pg. 2-3).
The Texts of the Bible
^
Read about it first, then read it, then come and argue your position.

I have no doubt the Bible is a powerful and important book, it's just incomplete. Those are the answers I'm interested in. The Bible has been a subject of interest to me all my adult life. I have read extensively, not only from the Book itself but a multitude of ancient texts and opinions from all walks of life, in several different translations etc. But I'm always interested in hearing more.
I have no 'position' to argue other than the whole story hasn't been told.

As for your question maybe this will suffice:

Actually the answer to your question is Yajnavalkya.

Yajnavalkya (c. 9th–8th century BCE) recognized that the Earth is spherical in his astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana. This is also recognized in another Vedic Sanskrit text Aitareya Brahmana composed around the same time, and in a later Sanskrit commentary Vishnu Purana

Pythagoras reached the same conclusion in 540BC.

Philolaus of Croton 480-405BC believed that the Earth orbited along with the Sun around a central 'fire'.

Several Greeks circa 350BC held the Pythagoras view such as Heraclides Ponticus, Hicetas, and Ecphantus.

Aristarchus of Samos 310-230BC believed that the Earth went around the Sun but his views were ignored by the Bishops of the church (who then claimed scientific prowess).

Circa 200BC Erasthenes of Cyrene attempted a measurement of the Earth's circumference.

It was an inaccuracy by the great mathematician Ptolemy circa 140BC which claimed that the Earth was again at the center of the System and this allowed the church to hold the view for the next 1500 years.

Kopernik - Copernicus 1473-1543AD never blatantly challenged the authority of the church. His works were published after church approved 'corrections' and omissions. His last work was published the year of his death.

It is only when these facts are brought to light that one can see the true damage done by the Roman Catholic church which tried so long to keep truth secret from people in order to hold power over them. Even if it meant persecuting the innocent.Only about 1/3 of Aristotle's works have survived. He was a great physisist making contributions in the understanding of motion and dynamics among other things. He believed that stars were spheres. However, he also believed that Earth was at the center of the Solar System.

It was Galileo who was dramatically persecuted by the church in the 1600's for his scientific and astronomical beliefs which kept science and truth from advancing for many years thereafter.

 

[percysunshine]

...or your record of disingenuosity...

Is that a real word?

.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It is rather difficult to explain but Greek mythology predates the completed bible. But the writing of the old testament does predate Greek mythology. You have to understand that the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt before the Greeks came to power. Also the Hebrews were freed from Egypt long before the Greeks fought Egypt and stole all of the Egyptians gods So the writing of the first 5 books of the Old Testament does predate the Greeks and their mythology. But that's a matter of timing, not something holy. Christianity borrows from many different religions and belief systems. It didn't spring wholly formed from some sacred source, it was cobbled together and added to as we went along.
Much like fully half the Bible writings never even made it into the Bible as we know it. It was the ultimate case of cherry-picking. Over the centuries this Holy See or that one decided to try his hand at condensing or out right slashing the Bible. So what we have today is the eqivalent of a script that's been edited for time and ease of reading and, of course , to keep us stupid, superstitious and scared to question, much like our friend YWC here who has obviously bought the whole scam hook line and sinker.

It is rather easy to explain if you do this:
Isaiah 740-681 BC
Aristotle 384-322 BC
Eratosthenes 276-194 BC
Out of the 3 that believed the earth was round, which one came first?


Now to refute the erroneous attack on the validity of the Bible, here is the truth about the Bible being "added to" and "tampered with", and "re-scripted" as we went along.

....... there is no doubt that of all the ancient books, the Bible is in a class to itself, as far as vindication and validation of the text is concerned. There are more manuscripts and external proofs for the books of the Bible than any other book extant. No other book has been rightly subjected to such a rigorous and exacting test for authenticity and, yet, the Bible time and again has not only survived all the tests, but has triumphantly prevailed. Almost two thousand years ago Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24: 35). Again, "Wherefore, Sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me" (Acts 27: 25).

(B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The new Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, pg. 2-3).
The Texts of the Bible
^
Read about it first, then read it, then come and argue your position.

While the opinions expressed by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort are only their opinions, the factual errors, mis-statements and omissions of the bible speak to something entirely different.

I wouldn’t necessarily see a spiritual work as a barrier to science. But it's true that those who already wish to restrain knowledge, for reasons of pride or willful ignorance, often grasp upon their holy books for an excuse to do precisely that.

The fault doesn't lie with the holy book, but with the reader.

The many centuries that have passed since the compilation of the bible is not so long that spiritual truths go out of date, but grasping upon these texts for detailed knowledge of the natural world is hopeless for anyone looking to expand the boundaries of scientific knowledge.

What I've seen consistently in the kind of article you linked to is a false claim of the bible illuminating science when it's actually the other way around. The interpretations are filled with apologetics for lack of scientific vocabulary in a spiritual work. Well, duh! No, I think these arguments do more harm than good by feeding the ignorance of those who are satisfied with their own lack of training outside religious studies.

They're ridiculously easy to debunk, and having debunked the "science" in a spiritual work, the "spiritual" truths get washed out like a baby with the bathwater. Every time I see a religionist arguing against something as clear as, well, evolution, for instance, it makes me lose respect for their religion.

Yes, yes, while great Hindu philosophers have done even more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist (and Taoist!) philosophers more with chemistry ... and every last one of them has been superseded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers.

The day of the pre-eminent religious/philosophical/scientific polymath has come and gone. I don't call it good or bad. I call it truth.

Why would we listen to the "opinions" of people who have devoted their lives to their research, which includes learning one of the most difficult languages there was, when we have your opinion?
Dazzle me with some Koine Greek........

 

[JakeStarkey]

TIR is here for grins and chuckles.

Why would we listen to the "opinions" of people who have devoted their lives to their research, which includes learning one of the most difficult languages there was, when we have your opinion? Dazzle me with some Koine Greek........

 

[The Irish Ram]

I have no doubt the Bible is a powerful and important book, it's just incomplete. Those are the answers I'm interested in. The Bible has been a subject of interest to me all my adult life. I have read extensively, not only from the Book itself but a multitude of ancient texts and opinions from all walks of life, in several different translations etc. But I'm always interested in hearing more.
I have no 'position' to argue other than the whole story hasn't been told.

Candy, I guess it depends on the person doing the reading.
That isn't meant to be a criticism. I mean, when I read Day 1, I thought, day 1.
When Nachmanides read Day 1, he thought:
spacial time
infinite amount of dimensions
4 knowable by humans
there are rolled up ones
on and on and on.
That's all science. At least it is when Einstein says it and Hawking and the others discover it.
Did you get that from Genesis?

There is layer after layer and level upon level in the Bible.
A lot of what we may think is not complete, is actually there. We just haven't discovered that level yet.

And God knows that some people "can't handle the truth." There have been quantum physicists that have committed suicide because of what could possibly happen. There were things known to His prophets that He warned to keep to themselves. He doesn't want man's hearts to fail.

Incomplete is for several reasons. It produces faith, fosters education, and can be for mercy sake.
But for those that ask for wisdom, it's a promise from God, that he'll give it to you.

And we are being given the answers.
Science is proving the Bible.
Nachmanides was a Rabbi. But his brain was scientifically inclined.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You believe that all you want. Thinking, intelligent Christians understand that the Bible is not a science book. End of story.

 

[CandySlice]

I have no doubt the Bible is a powerful and important book, it's just incomplete. Those are the answers I'm interested in. The Bible has been a subject of interest to me all my adult life. I have read extensively, not only from the Book itself but a multitude of ancient texts and opinions from all walks of life, in several different translations etc. But I'm always interested in hearing more.
I have no 'position' to argue other than the whole story hasn't been told.

Candy, I guess it depends on the person doing the reading.
That isn't meant to be a criticism. I mean, when I read Day 1, I thought, day 1.
When Nachmanides read Day 1, he thought:
spacial time
infinite amount of dimensions
4 knowable by humans
there are rolled up ones
on and on and on.
That's all science. At least it is when Einstein says it and Hawking and the others discover it.
Did you get that from Genesis?

There is layer after layer and level upon level in the Bible.
A lot of what we may think is not complete, is actually there. We just haven't discovered that level yet.

And God knows that some people "can't handle the truth." There have been quantum physicists that have committed suicide because of what could possibly happen. There were things known to His prophets that He warned to keep to themselves. He doesn't want man's hearts to fail.

Incomplete is for several reasons. It produces faith, fosters education, and can be for mercy sake.
But for those that ask for wisdom, it's a promise from God, that he'll give it to you.
And we are being given the answers.
Science is proving the Bible.
Nachmanides was a Rabbi. But his brain was scientifically inclined.

And so He has. And I just keep asking questions.

What could be withheld that would be worse than the Vietnam War, Nixon, Johnson, the Atom bomb,the oil embargo, chinese girls mutilated for life, the Gulf War, Islamic women mutilated for life and murdered, millions slaughtered in the name of 'religion',the hydrogen bomb, the horror that has been the Catholic church from day one, including the Inquisition and the Auto de fe, sidewinder missiles, Ted Bundy, Barack Obama, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charlie Manson, the SDS, greedy banks that cause the collapse of a great nation, Jack the Ripper, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and clouds of ash that interupt air travel all over the world, global warming, the withdrawal of the icecaps and Nancy Grace?