The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

Moochie said:
If this is the best they can offer, then I see religion, particularly Christianity, dying out within two or three generations.
Click to expand...
That looked a lot more likely a hundred years ago than it does today. Do you really think that knowlege counters ignorance? No.
 
Moochie said:
From reading this and other threads where "believers" wax lyrical, it is clear to me that they (true believers) will not and cannot answer challenges to their beliefs.

Instead, they either a) ignore such challenges; b) counter with erroneous quotes from the bible; or c) change the subject.

If this is the best they can offer, then I see religion, particularly Christianity, dying out within two or three generations.

M.
Click to expand...

d) State that the person challenging the faulty evidence is just too dumb to understand it.
 
ceo_esq said:
Well, it's a thing commonly repeated and popularly believed, I'll grant you. I just don't have much basis for thinking it's very accurate.
Click to expand...
Really, so many different history books were wrong about the same thing. Did we forget the big thing with Christopher Columbus and that many of the people back then thought the world was flat. Oh, don’t forget the church, and them saying to the people that the earth as the center of the universe, even if way back when some may have thought that the stars where also other suns. Many people today think that the cold comes from cold weather and not viruses.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Davidjayjordan said:
As for 6,000 years do the math..

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/6000yearsofEarthshistory.html
Click to expand...


Ok, I've been through the first 4 paragraphs, and I'm a little curious about something already. According to this article, archaeology is fine when is supports the bible, but the rest of archaeology is bunk. Astronomy is fine when it supports the bible, but the rest of astronomy is bunk. Same for math, and physics, and biology it seems.

I'm wondering, since you are trying to use science, could you explain (using science, without resorting to the bible) how you decide which aspects of science to use and which to throw out? And once you've answered this question, could you look back at your answer and see if you've answered it in a very scientific way? (That is, objectively.)
 
Paulhoff said:
Really, so many different history books were wrong about the same thing. Did we forget the big thing with Christopher Columbus and that many of the people back then thought the world was flat.
Click to expand...

Actually that's a myth.

Paulhoff said:
Oh, don’t forget the church, and them saying to the people that the earth as the center of the universe, even if way back when some may have thought that the stars where also other suns. Many people today think that the cold comes from cold weather and not viruses.
Click to expand...

You're conflating old wives tales with endemic ignorance about basic observable astronomy? The Churchs prosecution of Galileo is definately problematic, but I don't think Midievel Christians are the only ones to be confused about our and the Earth's place in the Universe.
 
Davidjayjordan said:
As for 6,000 years do the math..
Click to expand...

An old Earth was demonstrated by geologists, many of whom were Christian pastors and ministors over 200 years ago. The data has only been refined since. Anyone who thinks there is any math anywhere than their own delusions evidencing a 6,000 year old Earth is living in a fantasy world.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Actually that's a myth.
Click to expand...

To the layman that was not a myth and the church didn't go around correcting that.
UnrepentantSinner said:
You're conflating old wives tales with endemic ignorance about basic observable astronomy? The Churchs prosecution of Galileo is definately problematic, but I don't think Midievel Christians are the only ones to be confused about our and the Earth's place in the Universe.
Click to expand...
There is a big different between being confused and being oppressed, the masses were not well educated, and to be a gentleman one was not well educated in the sciences and in mathematics in many circles.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
NobbyNobbs said:
Ok, I've been through the first 4 paragraphs, and I'm a little curious about something already. According to this article, archaeology is fine when is supports the bible, but the rest of archaeology is bunk. Astronomy is fine when it supports the bible, but the rest of astronomy is bunk. Same for math, and physics, and biology it seems.

I'm wondering, since you are trying to use science, could you explain (using science, without resorting to the bible) how you decide which aspects of science to use and which to throw out? And once you've answered this question, could you look back at your answer and see if you've answered it in a very scientific way? (That is, objectively.)
Click to expand...

SEE Darwins rebuttal of his theory, and SEE Vieloksky's , an honest evolutionist, observations concerning catastrohpe's that shaped the earth's geology and fossil record as he proved without doubts that there was a world wide flood. understand the pole shift, and the dropping of an upper water layer, and you have absolute confirmation.

Or study true archeology but not radiation beyond a few thousand years.

Got to fly
 
Davidjayjordan said:
SEE Darwins rebuttal of his theory, and SEE Vieloksky's , an honest evolutionist, observations concerning catastrohpe's that shaped the earth's geology and fossil record as he proved without doubts that there was a world wide flood. understand the pole shift, and the dropping of an upper water layer, and you have absolute confirmation.

Or study true archeology but not radiation beyond a few thousand years.

Got to fly
Click to expand...

Darwin's rebuttal of his theory? You're not going to pull out the tired canard where you claim Darwin recants his writings? We busted that myth on page 4 of this thread.
 
Davidjayjordan said:
Whew.... thank the Lord, I don't want to make a pass on a guy.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for EOS of course, but I'm pretty sure she'd appreciate it if you kept your filthy little idiot-brain on the subject of apologising for lying all the time.
 
Paulhoff said:
To the layman that was not a myth and the church didn't go around correcting that.

There is a big different between being confused and being oppressed, the masses were not well educated, and to be a gentleman one was not well educated in the sciences and in mathematics in many circles.
Click to expand...

Have you got any citations for these assertions or are you just repeating "common knowledge?"
 
Davidjayjordan said:
SEE Darwins rebuttal of his theory, and SEE Vieloksky's , an honest evolutionist, observations concerning catastrohpe's that shaped the earth's geology and fossil record as he proved without doubts that there was a world wide flood. understand the pole shift, and the dropping of an upper water layer, and you have absolute confirmation.

Or study true archeology but not radiation beyond a few thousand years.

Got to fly
Click to expand...
Velikovsky? You're seriously offering Velikovsky's work as evidence?

Velikovsky was one of the nuttiest, silliest, least scientific people ever to walk this planet. He claimed that Venus started as a comet ejected from Jupiter, bounced around the Solar system like a billiard ball, dropped manna on the Earth as it passed by, came to a screeching halt in its present orbit, and suddenly transformed into a planet almost the size of Earth!

And all of this was based on his belief that the bible was inerrant, so there must be physical explanations for the bible stories about comets, mass extinctions and food just dropping out of the sky. His ideas don't just lack any scientific basis, they actually contradict plainly observable and testable truths in the most extreme way possible.

If that's really an example of where you get your science ideas then it's no wonder you're so screwed up! :nope:
 
Well, that settles it, Davidjayjordan has very limited reading for comprehension abilities.

Did my last post not say that my avatar DOES confirm my gender? Or were there too many big words in that sentence for him to stumble over?

So, I guess reading anything besides what is on science bashing sites would be way over his head. I chalk this up to a lost cause due to lack of the ability to assimilate any serious vocabulary.

Very flimsy strawman about atheists and females. There are plenty of atheist females out there. Most of my heroes are fellow female atheists.

Not only that, but to ignore blatant evidence of the actual age of the earth? This cannot be a serious discussion. It's rather boring, and still circular.

*yawn*

I have to work on a project for school that is far more interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom