Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

[Monnagonna]

Anyways, you have no real proof or else everyone would know it. Just like god, if it really existed, it would hold a press conference on the white house lawn to show everyone it exists. Everything else is total bullshit.

There is plenty of proof,people just don't want to accept it.

Nice way to leave a thread.

Didn't leave, where's your proof of the flood and that Noah got 2 of EVERY animal on earth. Do you realize how many species there are today? Tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why do you care? You don't believe, we do. We have faith in the inerrancy of the bible, based upon our faith.

Here's what it comes down to..I have faith that the Bible is God's word, and is without error, and without fault. I believe it is exactly the way that He means it to be, and that any discrepencies aren't in the Bible, but in our interpretation of it.

Perhaps Noah's Ark was a spaceship full of testubes of embryos, who knows. It is described as a ship with two of each creature. I believe it. How it was accomplished, I don't know. I don't care. I have faith that it will be revealed in time, not just to me, but to everybody.

At that time the people who are unsaved will march into a pit, regardless of what they have now had proven to them. It won't matter, at that time.

So everybody knows that Christians have FAITH in things which have not been, and never will be, proven...at least not until God reveals them. So why do anti-Christian bible bashers feel compelled to trot out their pathetically unsubstantial *evidence* that the bible is a big fat lie? Do you think it makes any difference to believers, who by definition, have FAITH in a God they have never seen? What is the point?

The point is to attack. Just as the OP says. It's to demean, ridicule and oppress. It is evidence of intolerance. There's no other reason for it; non-believers gain nothing when they attack believers. There's no point to it. And they know when they start that they aren't going to *convert* anyone. They do it anyway for the same reason Hitler held Jews up to ridicule...because they hope to silence, demean and eliminate a group of people from the face of the earth.

That's the only purpose of the attacks.

 

[AllieBaba]

PS..I have yet to see one thing in the bible disproved.

 

[Mr Natural]

PS..I have yet to see one thing in the bible disproved.

And I've yet to see one thing proved.

 

[cbirch2]

Do i need to show you this to ?

Several other sources (US Geological Survey, United Nations FAO) list additional elements as having a role in plant and/or animal life processes. But no description of that "role" was discovered. Those elements are: Strontium, Lithium, Barium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Platinum (for plants).


Here you can go educate yourself a little better on elements and their roles.

The Role of Elements in Life Processes | Mineral Information Institute


Please don't try to make me look ignorant because you actually are ignorat of the role of elements in both our theories. Many of these elements perform different roles between human animal and plants.


When are you gonna explain how non-living matter became living matter. ?

And that doesnt have anything to do with god. Of course plant cells are composed of different elements than animals are. Thats common sense.

Wow a natural process would think to create plants that exhale off oxygen and are a great source for food that our bodies need.

That sounds like an intelligent designer to me.

No. The early atmosphere of the earth had no free oxygen, it was all bound in CO2. Primitive animal life existed in oceans, while plants were able to use the CO2 on the surface and survive on land. The spread of plants oxygenated the atmosphere, allowing for the first creatures that could breath in water and air, amphibians.

 

[AllieBaba]

But what does that have to do with me? I have faith. Do you think my faith will be affected by repeated attacks on the bible, that while they are demeaning and obnoxious, prove nothing?

What is the compulsion to repeatedly attack the bible? You either believe or you don't. Why would non believers care if believers believe? And why do they feel they need to constantly slam the bible, give the fact that believers have faith that isn't based upon scientific evidence?

 

[cbirch2]

Laugh all you want come take the tour you will be convinced when he is done.

There is so much ewvidence there that supports the flood theory and destroy's the evolutionist timeline.

Like....?

I am still waiting for your response to this.


You really are brainwashed believing what you spew.

Let me show you why you believe lies. Most everything you believe is built on imagination.

Natural selection is what keeps the gene pool strong and helps keeping the group alive and removing the weaker genes and defective genes and of course mutations.

If there was no natural selection we and all organisms would die off.

Natural selection is what would work against evolution because it would remove mutations that are not solidified in the gene pool.

How could a non-thinking and non-intelligent natural process think and create all the vital organs it would take for an organism to live ?

Micro-adaptations;

Fact #1 produce the same kind of plant or animal because of the DNA code barrier. Never will a cow produce a non-cow.

Micro-adaptations ;

Fact #2 result from the sorting or the loss of genetic information.

Fact # 3 scientist know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

Neo-darwinism is based on three false assumptions.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.
2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.
3. Needs long ages for this to happen millions of years ,given enough time they claim a bacteria cell overcame the law of abiogenesis and all mathematical possibility and came to life and then mutated its way to everything alive now,whew talk about faith. and they say it ended up the thing they call the ultimate mutation,you and I.

Here is a problem for you darwinist.

All observed mutations after millions of observations,mutations are caused by the sorting or loss of pre-existing genetic data. This is Gene Depletion. Gene depletion applies to Micro-adaptations and mutations,so they get weaker and weaker until they're removed by Natural Selection.

NATURAL SELECTION PREVENTS EVOLUTION FROM BEING POSSIBLE.

So you're being taught mutations + Natural Selection leads to Neo-darwinian Evolution.

But real science reveals based on millions of observations; DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural Selection is what prevents Macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is an impossibility.


Example; You see , when breeding you breed out information you're not breeding in new information.

Let's say you're breeding boxers two purebreds.well it took several different breeds to create the boxer to begin with, what happens is through natural selection every generation after the first two boxers they would breed out information and the gene pool gets smaller and smaller and than Natural Selection weeds out the information of the other dogs it took to create the boxer in the first place. So unless another breed is introduced to the gene pool those boxers will only have genetic information to produce boxers and this is factual evidence.


Since you probably subscribe to this Neo Darwinism and believe that Natural selection allows a mutant gene to take over a gene pool.

Since most mutations are neutral or harmful to the organism how come humans are not crippled ,deformed,or dead since Nathral selection would allow harmful mutations to take over a population according to your faulty belief ?
__________________
We have two choices, life began from a bowl of soup or we were a product of intelligent design.

You already quoted that! Natural Selection doesnt work in the way you describe. Natural selection has nothing to do with weeding out bad genes like some sort of magic trick. Its how life responds to the environment. If the environment changes the segment of the gene pool best equipped to handle that change will survive and flourish better than others.

Example: Nearly every cell in every living organism needs oxygen for a biological process called cellular respiration, it is the metabolic process of a single cell. The first animals gathered oxygen from the water through their gills. Once plants had diversified enough, and the atmosphere had sufficient levels of oxygen via photosynthesis, animals gradually migrated to land because the availability of free oxygen allows the organism to expend less energy gathering it for cellular respiration.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Do i need to show you this to ?

Several other sources (US Geological Survey, United Nations FAO) list additional elements as having a role in plant and/or animal life processes. But no description of that "role" was discovered. Those elements are: Strontium, Lithium, Barium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Platinum (for plants).


Here you can go educate yourself a little better on elements and their roles.

The Role of Elements in Life Processes | Mineral Information Institute


Please don't try to make me look ignorant because you actually are ignorat of the role of elements in both our theories. Many of these elements perform different roles between human animal and plants.


When are you gonna explain how non-living matter became living matter. ?

And that doesnt have anything to do with god. Of course plant cells are composed of different elements than animals are. Thats common sense.

Wow a natural process would think to create plants that exhale off oxygen and are a great source for food that our bodies need.

That sounds like an intelligent designer to me.

This is how the fundamentalist brain works.

Plants that are a great source of good=intelligent designer helping people

Poisonous plants that kill people=intelligent designer..who......um....he put those there to.......um....well it's part of god's plan.

 

[Dr.Drock]

PS..I have yet to see one thing in the bible disproved.

Because you've chosen not to see it.




Anyone who takes science seriously understands the story of Noah's Ark has been proven patently false.

 

[cbirch2]

Would you like proof of the transititon from gills to lung? Or fish to Amphibian? Ok.

Lungfish - Lungfish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"All lungfish have two lungs, with the exception of the Australian lungfish, which only has one. The lung(s) connect to the pharynx. The lungs of lungfish are homologous to the lungs of tetrapods [four legged animals including humans]. As in tetrapods and bichirs, the lungs extend from the ventral surface of the esophagus and gut[3]'.[4]

While other species of fish can breathe air via modified, vascularized gas bladders,[5] these bladders are usually simple sacs, devoid of complex internal structure. In contrast, the lungs of lungfish are subdivided into numerous smaller air sacs, maximising the surface area available for gas exchange. Furthermore, swim bladders have arisen independently in several lineages of fish.
[edit] "

How about this?

Coelacanth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"According to genetic evidence the divergence of coelacanths, lungfish, and tetrapods is thought to have occurred 390 million years ago."[4]

Source: [4]:^ a b Johanson, Zerina, John A. Long, John A. Talent, Philippe Janvier, and James W. Warren. "Oldest Coelacanth, from the Early Devonian of Australia." Biology Letters 2.3 (2006): 443-46. Print.

You can even see the transition from gills to lung in a single organism. Tadpoles have gills, when they become frogs they have lungs. Frogs even have a primitive bronchial system. They "swallow air", because the amphibian respiratory system hasnt developed; or rather it did, and those amphibians in which it developed became reptiles, and then mammals.

 

[Mr Natural]

But what does that have to do with me? I have faith. Do you think my faith will be affected by repeated attacks on the bible, that while they are demeaning and obnoxious, prove nothing?

What is the compulsion to repeatedly attack the bible? You either believe or you don't. Why would non believers care if believers believe? And why do they feel they need to constantly slam the bible, give the fact that believers have faith that isn't based upon scientific evidence?

Pointing out the holes in a story is not the same thing as attacking it.

 

[cbirch2]

Oh jeez...Im waiting for someone to quote the one mistake i made as to why oxygen was beneficial...

If your smart enough, you can find the mistake. Ill make it a game for you.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Anyways, you have no real proof or else everyone would know it. Just like god, if it really existed, it would hold a press conference on the white house lawn to show everyone it exists. Everything else is total bullshit.

There is plenty of proof,people just don't want to accept it.

Nice way to leave a thread.

Yo.........You Were Excreted.......gonna have to do better than cherry picking off some bullshit sites.

Got any real science to back it up?

 

[Steelplate]

Nobody hates the Bible.

It's just that some of us just don't take it as seriously as you do.

The OP is on a proselytizing mission to convert people to his version of Christianity. So, if we don't go along with that program, we're "Bible haters".

If you ask a fundie to talk to you in non-bible language, the fundie thinks you're a "Bible hater".

Lol..nice example of Christian hating. Thanks, Sky! You always come through!

That's ridiculous. I am a Christian and I try my best to love everyone the best I can. Love means not judging them for their actions. God's job is to judge, ours isn't. But Some Christians can't help themselves but to demean people that do stuff that they don't agree with. Condemning them to hell before God even gets a say in the matter.

That is not Christianity. You have no clue who is and who isn't going to hell... neither do I. Homosexual Christians may very well walk among us in paradise... Drug addicts, Prostitutes... all those people that SOME Christians choose to threaten with eternal damnation are the people that God will have the most mercy upon. Those who act in God's name and make these judgments will be judged much more harshly.

James 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

The bottom line is that we are all flawed people. No one is better than another in God's eyes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And that doesnt have anything to do with god. Of course plant cells are composed of different elements than animals are. Thats common sense.

Wow a natural process would think to create plants that exhale off oxygen and are a great source for food that our bodies need.

That sounds like an intelligent designer to me.

No. The early atmosphere of the earth had no free oxygen, it was all bound in CO2. Primitive animal life existed in oceans, while plants were able to use the CO2 on the surface and survive on land. The spread of plants oxygenated the atmosphere, allowing for the first creatures that could breath in water and air, amphibians.

See you have a theory to.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Like....?

I am still waiting for your response to this.


You really are brainwashed believing what you spew.

Let me show you why you believe lies. Most everything you believe is built on imagination.

Natural selection is what keeps the gene pool strong and helps keeping the group alive and removing the weaker genes and defective genes and of course mutations.

If there was no natural selection we and all organisms would die off.

Natural selection is what would work against evolution because it would remove mutations that are not solidified in the gene pool.

How could a non-thinking and non-intelligent natural process think and create all the vital organs it would take for an organism to live ?

Micro-adaptations;

Fact #1 produce the same kind of plant or animal because of the DNA code barrier. Never will a cow produce a non-cow.

Micro-adaptations ;

Fact #2 result from the sorting or the loss of genetic information.

Fact # 3 scientist know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

Neo-darwinism is based on three false assumptions.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.
2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.
3. Needs long ages for this to happen millions of years ,given enough time they claim a bacteria cell overcame the law of abiogenesis and all mathematical possibility and came to life and then mutated its way to everything alive now,whew talk about faith. and they say it ended up the thing they call the ultimate mutation,you and I.

Here is a problem for you darwinist.

All observed mutations after millions of observations,mutations are caused by the sorting or loss of pre-existing genetic data. This is Gene Depletion. Gene depletion applies to Micro-adaptations and mutations,so they get weaker and weaker until they're removed by Natural Selection.

NATURAL SELECTION PREVENTS EVOLUTION FROM BEING POSSIBLE.

So you're being taught mutations + Natural Selection leads to Neo-darwinian Evolution.

But real science reveals based on millions of observations; DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural Selection is what prevents Macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is an impossibility.


Example; You see , when breeding you breed out information you're not breeding in new information.

Let's say you're breeding boxers two purebreds.well it took several different breeds to create the boxer to begin with, what happens is through natural selection every generation after the first two boxers they would breed out information and the gene pool gets smaller and smaller and than Natural Selection weeds out the information of the other dogs it took to create the boxer in the first place. So unless another breed is introduced to the gene pool those boxers will only have genetic information to produce boxers and this is factual evidence.


Since you probably subscribe to this Neo Darwinism and believe that Natural selection allows a mutant gene to take over a gene pool.

Since most mutations are neutral or harmful to the organism how come humans are not crippled ,deformed,or dead since Nathral selection would allow harmful mutations to take over a population according to your faulty belief ?
__________________
We have two choices, life began from a bowl of soup or we were a product of intelligent design.

You already quoted that! Natural Selection doesnt work in the way you describe. Natural selection has nothing to do with weeding out bad genes like some sort of magic trick. Its how life responds to the environment. If the environment changes the segment of the gene pool best equipped to handle that change will survive and flourish better than others.

Example: Nearly every cell in every living organism needs oxygen for a biological process called cellular respiration, it is the metabolic process of a single cell. The first animals gathered oxygen from the water through their gills. Once plants had diversified enough, and the atmosphere had sufficient levels of oxygen via photosynthesis, animals gradually migrated to land because the availability of free oxygen allows the organism to expend less energy gathering it for cellular respiration.

Finally,someone attempted an answer to this.

Wrong, when you breed you breed out information not in information so by breeding out information the gene pool gets smaller and smaller until the information from all the other dog's needed to make a boxer that is all the information that is left,information to make a boxer.

Over time bad genes can be eliminated from a bloodline because the strong survive. It get's weeded out,a mutation cannot take over a gene pool ,if that was the case we would be deformed,stricken with disease,or dead because all the harmful mutations that exist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Would you like proof of the transititon from gills to lung? Or fish to Amphibian? Ok.

Lungfish - Lungfish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How about this?

Coelacanth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"According to genetic evidence the divergence of coelacanths, lungfish, and tetrapods is thought to have occurred 390 million years ago."[4]

Source: [4]:^ a b Johanson, Zerina, John A. Long, John A. Talent, Philippe Janvier, and James W. Warren. "Oldest Coelacanth, from the Early Devonian of Australia." Biology Letters 2.3 (2006): 443-46. Print.

You can even see the transition from gills to lung in a single organism. Tadpoles have gills, when they become frogs they have lungs. Frogs even have a primitive bronchial system. They "swallow air", because the amphibian respiratory system hasnt developed; or rather it did, and those amphibians in which it developed became reptiles, and then mammals.

oh no you didn't, Let me show you how reliable your wiki is.

Coelacanth:
the world's oldest fish?

Quick-read this article:
Evolutionary scientists used to think that amphibians evolved from a group of fishes that included the coelacanth, which was known only from fossils. But they dropped this idea when living coelacanths were found from 1938 showing no evidence of evolution from the oldest fossil coelacanths to the living examples.The evidence from the coelacanth is good evidence for creation, for it shows that DNA, the genetic code, has remained stable throughout time.



When a living coelacanth fish was found in 1938 it was hailed as the scientific sensation of the century. Until then, the coelacanth (pronounced SEE'-luh-canth) was known to science only from fossils. Scientists generally believed coelacanths had become extinct 60 or 70 million years ago. Since 1938 many more living coelacanths have been caught.

All coelacanths, living and fossil, are members of a group of fishes called Crossopterygians. It is this group that most evolutionists believe evolved into amphibians and all land vertebrates — including humans.

Before the discovery of living coelacanths (photo at left shows museum official Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer with the 1938 specimen), evolutionists assumed that the fish's internal organs would be “part way” evolving from those of ordinary fish to those of amphibians.

But the living coelacanths showed no evidence that their soft parts were starting to adapt for use on land. So it was conceded that the coelacanth was obviously not the ancestor of amphibians after all.

Did anything evolve?

So evolutionists looked for another type of fish that would fit their belief that fish evolved into the creatures that dwell both on land and in water — the amphibians. There was no strong evidence, but they decided that another member of the Crossopterygian group of fishes — the rhipidistian — might have evolved into an amphibian.

How did they decide that rhipidistian fishes could have evolved into amphibians? The idea grew out of their study of similarities in skeletons of rhipidistians and what they believe were “early” amphibians. But in reality there is a vast difference between rhipidistians and amphibians.

Using even the evolutionists' time scale, which some scientists dispute, the coelacanth is the same fish it supposedly was hundreds of millions of years ago. It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically, while its cousin the rhipidistian was supposedly evolving the mind-boggling number of changes required to transform it eventually into a human.

The evidence from the coelacanth is good evidence for creation, for it shows that DNA, the genetic code, has remained stable throughout time. In other words, the coelacanth has reproduced after its kind just like the Bible's book of Genesis said fishes would!

Photo credits: Drawing of coelacanth by former FishBase artist Robbie Cada; photo of Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer with the mounted coelacanth in 1938, courtesy Goosens family website. (Hendrik Goosen was the fisherman from whose catch the 1938 coelacanth came).

Juvenile coelacanths filmed off Indonesia's Sulawesi Island on October 6, 2009:
Story from The Japan Times
Short video of young coelacanth


http://www.creationtips.com/coelacanth.html

 

[Youwerecreated]

The OP is on a proselytizing mission to convert people to his version of Christianity. So, if we don't go along with that program, we're "Bible haters".

If you ask a fundie to talk to you in non-bible language, the fundie thinks you're a "Bible hater".

Lol..nice example of Christian hating. Thanks, Sky! You always come through!

That's ridiculous. I am a Christian and I try my best to love everyone the best I can. Love means not judging them for their actions. God's job is to judge, ours isn't. But Some Christians can't help themselves but to demean people that do stuff that they don't agree with. Condemning them to hell before God even gets a say in the matter.

That is not Christianity. You have no clue who is and who isn't going to hell... neither do I. Homosexual Christians may very well walk among us in paradise... Drug addicts, Prostitutes... all those people that SOME Christians choose to threaten with eternal damnation are the people that God will have the most mercy upon. Those who act in God's name and make these judgments will be judged much more harshly.

James 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

The bottom line is that we are all flawed people. No one is better than another in God's eyes.

I say you're just politically correct and can't be honest.

It's an abomination and you know it. God was clear or do you really care what God say's?

 

[AllieBaba]

PS..I have yet to see one thing in the bible disproved.

Because you've chosen not to see it.




Anyone who takes science seriously understands the story of Noah's Ark has been proven patently false.

Bullshit. Anyone who says that has absolutely no inkling of what science is, or what proof is.

These guys are devout Catholics, btw...

Chudnovsky brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AllieBaba]

As was Max Planck, who developed quantum theory.

And Einstein, who scoffed at the idea that there was no God, and the creation of the universe was random.