Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

[AllieBaba]

I just assumed it wasn't sinking in. Nothing else does, why would that be any different?

 

[cbirch2]

Great question allie.

How about you ponder it and get back to us.

 

[Monnagonna]

Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

Because that book of fiction was written 300 years after the facts by simpletons who probably couldn't count past 20, who wore PJs and sandals and who lived in mud huts and rode around on donkeys.
Like seriously, how can ANYONE believe that Noah rounded up 2 of each of the millions of species on earth, from South America, Asia... It's just too stupid to comprehend.

Wrong, book of acts was written 40 years after the death of Christ. That was around 30 years before prophecies of Jesus began being fulfilled.

Proof?

And some proof about Noah? Having only 'faith" to believe that Noah rounded up all the animals in the world is just plain stupid.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

Because that book of fiction was written 300 years after the facts by simpletons who probably couldn't count past 20, who wore PJs and sandals and who lived in mud huts and rode around on donkeys.
Like seriously, how can ANYONE believe that Noah rounded up 2 of each of the millions of species on earth, from South America, Asia... It's just too stupid to comprehend.

Wrong, book of acts was written 40 years after the death of Christ. That was around 30 years before prophecies of Jesus began being fulfilled.

Proof?

And some proof about Noah? Having only 'faith" to believe that Noah rounded up all the animals in the world is just plain stupid.

Actually, most of the Old Testament wasn't wrtten until several HUNDRED years after the stories were first told.

There are a few views on the Bible. I am a Christian and I assure you that I do not take the stories of the Old Testament literally. There is very little in the Bible that I take literally. I have never met a Christian who takes the Bible literally. They pick the parts they want to take literally and figure out how to interpret the rest.
The Ancient Hebrew culture was such that, if you asked someone "Hey Bob, how's the family?", He would be likely to start with "I once had four goats and two camels..." and then go into a ten minute monologue from which you were supposed to deduce how his family actually was. It was how they communicated.

 

[AllieBaba]

And where do these tards get the idea that if the bible cannot be proven, then speciation is a fact by default?

Talk about garbage science.

 

[Monnagonna]

And where do these tards get the idea that if the bible cannot be proven, then speciation is a fact by default?

Talk about garbage science.

LOL, is you can't prove it, it IS speculation.

 

[IndependntLogic]

See you are a person i have much common ground with. Im not sure how well i could argue a case for abiogensis (life from non-life), im truthfully not even sure abiogensis is the stance i would take in that debate.

Evolution is compatible even with forms of creationism. Its just the idea that humans and other complex life poofed into existence i have a problem with. Pop John Paul II believed in evolution, so i would assume religion and science are compatible. Most would even suggest that evolution adds to the greater glory of whatever god may exist, its a beautiful process.

Id like a debate on evolution, particularly speciation. No insults, no ad hominem, only facts and logical deductions. That isnt possible with allie though, he only posts ad hominem.

Well, obviously Allie's faith is very important to him and he is nothing, if not passionate. I would say his avatar was fair warning...

Okay, a quick background on the origin of the Theory of Life - and please forgive me if I sound patronizing but you would be surprised how many people who argue against Creationism, have never even thought about the theory.
Basically, it comes down to this:
The odds of life "just appearing" are extraordinary. Like real big. More zeros than I could type in days. So theory goes (and I'm paraphrasing a bit) "Yeah but so what! Life had FOREVER to show up! SOooooo (and here's the zinger) GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, ANYTHING CAN OCCUR!"
This is both the basis and the biggest flaw with their argument. Because when you through in the possibility of a being beyond our understanding, which is all life and connects all life.... it's "Well no that couldn't happen."
Now, that's just getting me warmed up! But I'll tell you what. I'll explain my next problem with The THEORY of Evolution from my book "The Las Vegas Times Politically Incorrect Dictionary"

Evolution, Theory of: The belief that at some point, a group of reptiles were sitting around and one of them suddenly jumped up and said “Hey, it won't help me survive or anything but I think I’ll be a bird and fly around!”, at which point another said “Well, if you’re going to do that, I’m going to suddenly become warm-blooded, grow hair and start giving live births!”. As a result of this Reptilian Rebellion, the exact same animal became Eagles, Ostriches, Giraffes, Porcupines and People. This theory went onto say that believing anything else was just plain silly. God gets a very big laugh out of all this.

First on abiogensis i simply think the distinction between life and non life is a little blurry. RNA inside a cell membrane, along with one or two RNA specific enzymes, is a plausible precursor to life. The amount of 0's really means nothing. How many segments of RNA, or cellular membranes, would fit inside a small beaker or glass? millions, billions even. A one in a trillion chance isnt that small when things around us are composed of numbers of particles that are unfathomable.

As for evolution, thats not quite how it happens. Its not an intelligent driving force. Its not "i want to be a bird now". It works by competition, and only through thousands of generations. Mutations that are beneficial to an organism help its ability to survive, reproduce, and pass that mutation on. Portions of the population with beneficial adaptations will produce more offspring, statistically, than organisms without that adaption. Thats the mechanism by which evolution works and by which organisms evolve.

Hostilities running pretty high on this thread. I'm going to start new thread, same subject, hopefully with a bit more civility.

 

[AllieBaba]

And where do these tards get the idea that if the bible cannot be proven, then speciation is a fact by default?

Talk about garbage science.

LOL, is you can't prove it, it IS speculation.

That doesn't make sense but I think you're saying if you can't prove it, it is speculation.

There goes your theory that evolution explains speciation.

 

[cbirch2]

Wrong, book of acts was written 40 years after the death of Christ. That was around 30 years before prophecies of Jesus began being fulfilled.

Proof?

And some proof about Noah? Having only 'faith" to believe that Noah rounded up all the animals in the world is just plain stupid.

Actually, most of the Old Testament wasn't wrtten until several HUNDRED years after the stories were first told.

There are a few views on the Bible. I am a Christian and I assure you that I do not take the stories of the Old Testament literally. There is very little in the Bible that I take literally. I have never met a Christian who takes the Bible literally. They pick the parts they want to take literally and figure out how to interpret the rest.
The Ancient Hebrew culture was such that, if you asked someone "Hey Bob, how's the family?", He would be likely to start with "I once had four goats and two camels..." and then go into a ten minute monologue from which you were supposed to deduce how his family actually was. It was how they communicated.

And the old testament is the part i have a problem with. I personally dont subscribe to most of the new testament, but its stories arent quite as out there as the stories in the old testament are.

The old testament was originally oral tradition. Anyone that bases beliefs on that is crazy. Jonah did not live in a whale. Moses did not talk to a burning bush.

 

[Monnagonna]

And where do these tards get the idea that if the bible cannot be proven, then speciation is a fact by default?

Talk about garbage science.

LOL, is you can't prove it, it IS speculation.

That doesn't make sense but I think you're saying if you can't prove it, it is speculation.

There goes your theory that evolution explains speciation.

Something that cannot be proven is unproven speculation. Simple, no?

MY theory explaining speciation? I advanced no such theory. You're grasping at straws.

 

[cbirch2]

And where do these tards get the idea that if the bible cannot be proven, then speciation is a fact by default?

Talk about garbage science.

The parts of the bible i care about cannot be proven. You cannot prove jesus was divine or that moses parted the red sea.

You can however prove speciation. You and YWC have had to jump through hoops to "disprove" the evidence three people on the internet have come up with over a 3 day period. And you only addressed like 1/4 of the points we made. I would hate to see you debate an actual biologist and tell them that information somehow gets bred out of the genepool, like your friend YWC thinks.

 

[AllieBaba]

Nobody has ever, EVER proved evolution results in speciation, you fucking nitwit. None of your links prove it. You guys keep coming up with these ridiculous links that say there IS no proof that evolution leads to speciation, and then pretending that you've proven it.

IT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN.

When you see words like "might have" "possibly" it means there IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT. Proof does not have "might have" and "possibly" in the statement.

There isn't a single scientist in the WORLD who will say that speciation via evolution has been proven. Please quit saying that it has. Not only is it dishonest, it shows you up as ignorant mutants. It's embarassing.

 

[IndependntLogic]

you fucking nitwit.

.

Um, would that be the Christian in you talking? Just curious.

Started a new thread guys. You're both welcome to come play if you can reign in the um "Christian Rhetoric" as displayed above

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm still waiting to see evidence of the bible being attacked. Where is it?

I have no problem with the bible. I just don't think it should be taught in science class.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I'm still waiting to see evidence of the bible being attacked. Where is it?

I have no problem with the bible. I just don't think it should be taught in science class.

I brought that up a few times. He doesn't seem inclined to discuss it.

 

[cbirch2]

Nobody has ever, EVER proved evolution results in speciation, you fucking nitwit. None of your links prove it. You guys keep coming up with these ridiculous links that say there IS no proof that evolution leads to speciation, and then pretending that you've proven it.

IT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN.

When you see words like "might have" "possibly" it means there IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT. Proof does not have "might have" and "possibly" in the statement.

There isn't a single scientist in the WORLD who will say that speciation via evolution has been proven. Please quit saying that it has. Not only is it dishonest, it shows you up as ignorant mutants. It's embarassing.

I think its just hilarious that you draw the line at speciation, when the scientific definition of what constitutes speciation is a matter of opinion.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm still waiting to see evidence of the bible being attacked. Where is it?

I have no problem with the bible. I just don't think it should be taught in science class.

I brought that up a few times. He doesn't seem inclined to discuss it.

It doesn't exist. No one here is attacking the bible.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I'm still waiting to see evidence of the bible being attacked. Where is it?

I have no problem with the bible. I just don't think it should be taught in science class.

I brought that up a few times. He doesn't seem inclined to discuss it.

It doesn't exist. No one here is attacking the bible.

I haven't seen it here or even over there, for that matter.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I brought that up a few times. He doesn't seem inclined to discuss it.

It doesn't exist. No one here is attacking the bible.

I haven't seen it here or even over there, for that matter.

Have you read this whole thread or the previous two threads ?

 

[IndependntLogic]

It doesn't exist. No one here is attacking the bible.

I haven't seen it here or even over there, for that matter.

Have you read this whole thread or the previous two threads ?

Sure, I've read them.
I've seen lots of attacks on the acts and politics of organized religion. Not on the Bible.