ScottaWhite wrote:Let me put it this way for you darkstar,

If I say the color of the pen in my hand is royal blue, and you opine that it is yellow, it doesn't result in a difference of opinions, it results in you being wrong and my being right.

1st, its Darkstars if your gonna address me by my name then address me by my name

2nd, your example is correct but in no way relevant to this conversation. Its easy to prove that royal blue is royal blue, that is a fact. The existence of god is not something you can prove nor is it fact.... so what gives you the right to pass judgment on whose beliefs are flawed and incorrect?

As far as I'm concerned your another typical whiny prick jesus freak who thinks they know it all.

I just happened into this thread again and wow...

Quote:

It amazes me that people can believe the earth has always been/ has been forming forever/ that life originated elsewhere (but which then begs the question....yeah you know) Humans evolved over millions of years of random mutations that just happened to be randomly positive for the species. The earth just happened to settle into orbit around the sun at just the right spot so as to be suitable for life (class M planet ) Other theories of random gases floating in space and then BANG, a planet!

wow, you need to seriously get a book out on evolution and study up. How are you supposed to make a choice between creationism and evolutionism if you don't have the slightest clue how evolution works and even what it is!
1. biogenesis of life is NOT evolution despite what creationists tell you... we still don't know if God put the life there or if it came from another world. Who the heck knows?
2. humans did not evolve by "millions of random mutations that happened to be positive" It only requires a few key mutations to change species A into species B. We share ~98% of our genes with chimps. That less than 2% is the only difference between us and compare us physically to them! Most mutations are neutral by the way...
3. Evolution isn't a "Cadillac out of dust", it is a culmulative, directional increase in complexity over the period of hundreds of millions of years. It's kind of like making a tiny part, then adding another part, then another. In a few millions years you can make something really complex out of a simple template. Evolution isn't a wave of the magic wand where you say "bam, there's a single cell out of various inorganic molecules" There's alot of complex chemical and biological reactions involved.
4. The Earth just so happens to be in the "right spot" because we humans have been able to survive on this planet and are alive to realize that. If the Earth wasnt in this spot we wouldn't be around to argue stupid crap on the internet... simple as that.
5. a planet doesn't form like the Big Bang. A planet forms from simple gravitational attraction of dust and rock particles as the coellesce... as the mass gets bigger, gravity increases and so on until all of the nearby matter is accumulated. We see these dust clouds around other stars as we speak and see stars being born in dust nebulae... does the Earth somehow not get made in the same fashion as everything else in the universe?

Quote:

The faith it requires to be an atheist, and in turn, and evolutionist is a far greater effort than any other religion in the world. In fact, in requires not a scientific mind, but rather a rebellious mind that would rather believe inestimable odds than to believe in a Creator. Because, as I said in my original post, it stems from a refusal to believe that my choices in life have eternal consequences and that I am not the master of my soul.

so the mountain of scientific evidence for evolution and nothing at all for creationism doesn't mean anything to you? Faith is in a supernatural entity, last time I checked evolution didn't have an entity or a Heaven. I believe in God AND evolution and I believe that the existence of both is fine and dandy

Quote:

Most evolutionists/ atheists claim the earth is in the range of 100 million years old to 20billion years old. Quite a big gap there, but how do they measure it? Moon dust? carbon dating? Heck, the weatherman is wrong half the time, but his colleagues want me to believe that they have the age of the earth nailed down to give or take 100 billion years old.

the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. This number has not changed since we developed accurate dating methods. The Universe is tougher to date since we can only go by exoansion rates and visual cues. They think that it is 12-14 billion years. Judging from geology, biology, and every other science, it is clear the Earth has been around for a VERY long time.

Quote:

And lastly Toast. God is and always has been. Jesus said I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. The eternal God. God also said, the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

do you consider yourself a good person... lol I see where this is headed hahaha

FYI, there is a thread on Creation/Evolution and Noah's Ark on this forum if you want to read up... I'm gonna try and get back on topic from now on.

ScottaWhite wrote:The faith it requires to be an atheist, and in turn, and evolutionist is a far greater effort than any other religion in the world. In fact, in requires not a scientific mind, but rather a rebellious mind that would rather believe inestimable odds than to believe in a Creator.

So, what I'm getting from this is that you believe in creation because it's too much work to believe otherwise...aka, you're lazy?
Oh yeah, atheist does not equal evolutionist. That statement alone shows that you aren't even trying to comprehend anyone's view but yours.

ScottaWhite wrote:and accept the same from them.

, you have done no such thing. If you want to accept our questions, answer this:

ScottaWhite wrote:God is and always has been. Jesus said I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. The eternal God. God also said, the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Do you have any proof? Did you personally witness these events? Do you have any proof that the book you adhere to is anything more than a farce?



fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster

Scott:

In the same breath you say "God is and alwys will be", you're going to have people asking you to prove it--just like you're aking us to prove it. In the same faithful step you say "God is and always will be", I say to also see that it's entire plausible that the universe et al is and always will be.

Light, CO2, and water become enegy for plants and emits oxygen--this a proof that stuff begets stuff. As such, it's plausible that since matter and energy are stuff, they can create each other. Hence, the first atoms. Atoms, with their forces, natural created molecules out of each other--usually with applied energy. Cells came out of molecules engaged in chemical reactions and energy applied to it.

Thinking about it--life (or rather, the forces supporting life--plants, animals, protists, monerans, and fungi) is just one huge, complex chemical/energy reaction going on within a closed system. All that seemed to have happened was within the nutient soup that formed on early earth based on the chemcials it did have on it and the lightning storms going on, sustained chemcial reactiuon happened forming the first protiens and whatnot.

IMHO it's easier and less complex to believe thatall of this is just part of a giant cycle that is simple in it's complecity. God for me inserts variables that don't correspond with what i percieve is happening. Well, at least God in the Monotheistic stance.

Anyhow, God or no God, it doesan't matter since neither can be definitively proven. Choose your poison.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Ya know, maybe they shouldn't teach religion into your 18. If they didn't push that stuff into your head when it was still soft, I doubt you'd buy it. Religions are all alike, and they all started with mythology.

Scott, you have STILL avoided telling me just where god came from. Stop quoting the bible, which was written by people, and tell me where this 'guy' came from. No more semantics.



There's too much blood in my caffeine stream.

OHV notec "h yeah, atheist does not equal evolutionist. That statement alone shows that you aren't even trying to comprehend anyone's view but yours."

So if atheism does not embrace and accept evolution, then what does it believe? If you say evolution then they go hand in hand. If you say nobody really knows, then you are leaving a possibility for creation.

And I read people saying things that imply no one can know for sure because we weren't there. Then in the same post or next, I get the privilege of reading how it all evolved from bits and pieces coming together throughout the ages...lightning storms and the like....and here were are today.

Finally Darkstar, I know of God's existence because of His written revealed word. And I quote it because All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction for instruction in righteousness. (may be a paraphrase, since the book isn't within arm's reach.)

You quote what the high priests of atheism and evolution taught you, and I'll quote God. I'm sorry if you don't approve.

.



“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

I got an email today from the universe telling me it created itself.

Quote:

You quote what the high priests of atheism and evolution taught you, and I'll quote God. I'm sorry if you don't approve.

ok, so we're going to assume the Universe and Earth are billions of years old and that organisms have changed over time. We won't bother with mechanisms here.

Now, assume God exists and knows all of this and exactly how it came about. Do you really think God can adequately explain all of that to an average man 2000 years ago? Would he even bother to explain stellar evolution, genetics, anatomy, physics, micro and macroevolution, dinosaurs, etc. to this 2000 year old man? Did 2000 year old man even bother to ask what a star was or how old the Earth was? This 2000 year old man put a STORY in to explain our origins, just a story. The "creation myth" and "flood story" are found all over the world in Many different forms. None are the same. It is just a few oddballs today that continue to try and manipulate all the evidence to fit a fairy tale.

So.... God is indeed all-knowing and real, and the Bible is a great moral, historical, and spiritual guidebook, but it is nowhere close to being a science book.

And evolutionism is not an atheist agenda, there are plenty of Christians who believe in it. I'd be curious if there are any atheists that don't believe in evolution and if so, what do they beleive in?

Darkstars wrote:I got an email today from the universe telling me it created itself.

That made my day!! Thank you!



There's too much blood in my caffeine stream.

Speaking of God, In the book of Isaiah chapter 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." The usage of the word circle in this verse is from the Hebrew word khewg (transliteration). Now how did this man from more than 2000 years ago know that the earth was a circle? How is it that this 2000+ year old man knew this before modern "scientists" figured it out.

And for a long time, other religions taught that things such as a giant turtle or Atlas held the earth up. Before guys like copernicus and galileo came along, the catholic church and science taught that the earth was the center of the universe.

Funny how a guy like Job in the Bible could say something like this "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." That word suspendeth is the Hebrew word talah, which means to suspend or hang up. Now, how did Job know this before the invention of the telescope? The definitions for those two words come from the Strong's exhaustive concordance of the Bible and the Hebrew translation section in the back.

Yes, God is all-knowing and there is much science in the Bible. The Bible wasn't written to be a science book, but the science is still there.

And yes I have accepted challenges to my beliefs. I don't accept the validity of what y'all been saying, but I accepted (by reading them).
As it seems some of the others who disagreed with the church of atheism have left the thread, and I alone remain, I cannot spend the time to research and answer every question, nor do I have the time to read every hyperlink you cut n' paste. My silence does not mean I do not have an answer, but rather I don't have the time. Just as if you were the only atheism acolyte on the thread, fielding questions from a dozen Baptists.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Funny you mention "the earth is flat."

I thought somewhere the proof of *why* that little error came into being is because european culture, after the fall of Rome, was heavily influenced by the Norse, who, when travelling in the far north, encountered arctic mirages which made the ocean look like there was indeed an edge to it.

Back then, experince did play a bit of a role, and if a bunch of salty seafarers skirting the coasts of Iceland and greenland--a whole shipload of them, claim to have seen the edge of the world...and not just one shipload, but many, it kinda sticks around.

Every belief system there is and ever was uses some kind of theory that seems plausible to explain the universe. To the greeks, Atlas, holding the *spherical* world on his shoulders, caused earthquakes--to them it made sense.

Same thing with the God Business.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Except for this keeper... The vikings were wrong about the flat earth, and Job was written before the Greeks came into play.(aside from a band of mercenaries), so one could say the Greeks stole the idea of a round earth from the Hebrews. Bottom line, is that in both of my points, the Bible was scientifically accurate waayyyy before modern science discovered it.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

It was?

Hrmm...

Well, let's look at biblical scientific agreement:
Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)
If the Earth is spherical, it has no end, and no beginning, right? Also, if you go straight off a point from a flat surface, you'll see the other end and pretty much all points in between, but on a spherical surface, once the top of the protrusion is below the horizon, unless you travel there, you have no way of knowing it's there.


On top of that, the earth has edges, and pillars... according to Job, but of course it's scientifically accurate to a fault.


"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (From the NIV Bible, Job 9:6)"

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:4)"

"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)"

"He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)"

"for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (From the NIV Bible, Job 28:24)"

"Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. (From the NIV Bible, Job 11:9)"

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)"

If you want to talk about metaphorical differences, fine, you're inferring what you will...


As far as biblical accuracy, look at the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke... They all depict the SAME event, and it changes in description, order and people attending the well-spring of the Christian faith (ie, the resurrection, which is the difference between Judaism and Christianity), the villainization and death of Judas (ie, In Matthew Judas hung himself, but in Acts he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out.) and other inconsistencies.

The bible isn't a scientific text... There's a reason we have science: we need to be able to say "we don't know" instead of being authoritative and ultimately wrong and having no recourse but to give up faith... Science is basically our best shot at trying to figure out the universe we live in without defaulting to "thy will be done," because that's a cop-out ultimately. You have the ability to self-determine, and the ability to reason, so why not?

If someone decides to not believe in a creationist philosophy, then why question it? It strikes me that you assume that it's "correct" to be religious (to be precise Christian) and "wrong" to be otherwise... why is that?



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

ScottaWhite wrote:
Speaking of God, In the book of Isaiah chapter 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." The usage of the word circle in this verse is from the Hebrew word khewg (transliteration). Now how did this man from more than 2000 years ago know that the earth was a circle? How is it that this 2000+ year old man knew this before modern "scientists" figured it out.

And for a long time, other religions taught that things such as a giant turtle or Atlas held the earth up. Before guys like copernicus and galileo came along, the catholic church and science taught that the earth was the center of the universe.

Funny how a guy like Job in the Bible could say something like this "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." That word suspendeth is the Hebrew word talah, which means to suspend or hang up. Now, how did Job know this before the invention of the telescope? The definitions for those two words come from the Strong's exhaustive concordance of the Bible and the Hebrew translation section in the back.

Yes, God is all-knowing and there is much science in the Bible. The Bible wasn't written to be a science book, but the science is still there.

And yes I have accepted challenges to my beliefs. I don't accept the validity of what y'all been saying, but I accepted (by reading them).
As it seems some of the others who disagreed with the church of atheism have left the thread, and I alone remain, I cannot spend the time to research and answer every question, nor do I have the time to read every hyperlink you cut n' paste. My silence does not mean I do not have an answer, but rather I don't have the time. Just as if you were the only atheism acolyte on the thread, fielding questions from a dozen Baptists.

.

First off, why in the hell are you typing in italics? It's not hard to turn off. Also, you're the only christian crusader left in this thread because you are the only one crusading against us. Every other christian said their two cents and moved on. It was only you, the one who just wanted to know what we atheists thought, that has continued to try to convince us of our ignorant ways. What I find most amusing about the whole situation, is it's not just the atheists arguing against you.

Do you have any comprehension for how many times the bible has been translated, and sometimes by those with their own motives? And you want to tell me that you can then hold that as scientific proof? Come on. And you tell us it takes more faith to believe in evolution and be an atheists than to be a christian?

Also, since you continue to harp on it, where is this church of atheism? Where can I attend worships every Sunday? Stop mocking our beliefs and making yourself look like a tool.

^ right on

Quote:

Speaking of God, In the book of Isaiah chapter 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." The usage of the word circle in this verse is from the Hebrew word khewg (transliteration). Now how did this man from more than 2000 years ago know that the earth was a circle? How is it that this 2000+ year old man knew this before modern "scientists" figured it out.

If the Earth is flat Or a globe, it could look like a circle when viewed from above. If you look at the horizon around you it looks like a circle yet the ground appears flat. So this verse is ambiguous and you can use it to fit a Flat AND/OR a spherical Earth. There are a group of Christians called the Flat Earth Society who use that quote and the ones GAM posted to support their views. So who is right?

Quote:

And for a long time, other religions taught that things such as a giant turtle or Atlas held the earth up. Before guys like copernicus and galileo came along, the catholic church and science taught that the earth was the center of the universe.

uh, ONLY the Church taught that as fact... science wasn't yet advanced to the point to disprove it. Science wasn't taught back in the Middle Ages, the Church did and most science was flawed at best back then because the great minds of the day were "shackled" by religion.

Quote:

Funny how a guy like Job in the Bible could say something like this "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." That word suspendeth is the Hebrew word talah, which means to suspend or hang up. Now, how did Job know this before the invention of the telescope? The definitions for those two words come from the Strong's exhaustive concordance of the Bible and the Hebrew translation section in the back.

Yes, God is all-knowing and there is much science in the Bible. The Bible wasn't written to be a science book, but the science is still there.

"hanging" the Earth has little to do with how the Earth is suspended in space. It is hardly hanging there but in a "controlled equilibrium" between wanting to fly out of the Solar System and being sucked into the Sun. Nothing is just floating in space, it's controlled chaos in the Universe and sometimes uncontrolled chaos bound by the laws of physics. Why doesn't the Bible mention any of that?

I still would love to know where the science is in the Bible because ambigious verses aren't very compelleing evidence. Where is geology, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anatomy, biogeography, microevolution, etc.? Why doesn't the Bible just say "the Earth is X years old" in Genesis? The geneologies of Adam to Jesus and all of that is fraught with errors and gaps and it is clear there was much going on before Mankind showed up.

I cannot begin to take the hours neccessary to answer, (sorry, I forgot) every "question" you all propose. GAM either did a lot of research on his own to try to prove his point, or he went to a website and pasted.

Cool I guess, but unreasonable to ask me to point by point explain his fallacies. I can tell you however, that the verse from Daniel chapter 4 was a dream. In fact, look for yourself at verse 10 "Thus were the visions of mine head, in my bed..." Kinda stinks that I pointed that out doesn't it. Would be like me calling you a liar after you told a story about how you could shoot laser beams from your rectum....in your dream.

I can't locate the reference right now, but there is a verse that says "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (that would be your proof text for anatomy/physiology. Wow! The Bible knew that before medicine many centuries later were still "bleeding" people to get rid of their illnesses.

There are times in the Bible when the word usage is clearly metaphorical and allegorical. And you decide when that is by looking at the context of the entire passage, not just select snippets you use to try to defend your diatribes.

"the ends of the earth"? c'mon you are grasping for anything. Here, God is putting Job in his rightful place. He is making Job realize how insignifigant and stupid he is to question the soveregnty of God.

Haven't you ever used the term "sunrise" or "sunset" If you ever have, then you are unscientific, because you actually believe the sun rises and falls. You do! Well, if you are going to use your logic on yourself you do. Maddening aren't I?




“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Quote:

And lastly Toast. God is and always has been....

Yeah so. Is that supposed to sway anyone's decision?

In addition to potential translation tampering, the book you quote from is not complete, so what is to say it is right? Quoting the xian holy book is like watching a 60 minute TV show, catching the first and last 5 minutes then claiming to know everything in between.

Looks like someone's getting backed into a corner

ScottaWhite wrote:I cannot begin to take the hours neccessary to answer, (sorry, I forgot) every "question" you all propose. GAM either did a lot of research on his own to try to prove his point, or he went to a website and pasted.

Cool I guess, but unreasonable to ask me to point by point explain his fallacies. I can tell you however, that the verse from Daniel chapter 4 was a dream. In fact, look for yourself at verse 10 "Thus were the visions of mine head, in my bed..." Kinda stinks that I pointed that out doesn't it. Would be like me calling you a liar after you told a story about how you could shoot laser beams from your rectum....in your dream.

I can't locate the reference right now, but there is a verse that says "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (that would be your proof text for anatomy/physiology. Wow! The Bible knew that before medicine many centuries later were still "bleeding" people to get rid of their illnesses.

There are times in the Bible when the word usage is clearly metaphorical and allegorical. And you decide when that is by looking at the context of the entire passage, not just select snippets you use to try to defend your diatribes.

"the ends of the earth"? c'mon you are grasping for anything. Here, God is putting Job in his rightful place. He is making Job realize how insignifigant and stupid he is to question the soveregnty of God.

Haven't you ever used the term "sunrise" or "sunset" If you ever have, then you are unscientific, because you actually believe the sun rises and falls. You do! Well, if you are going to use your logic on yourself you do. Maddening aren't I?

For the love of your god man, ITALICS! You're almost as annoying as the blithering idiots who come on here and post in all caps. Look, I even fixed it for you. It was mighty difficult. Also, you're not maddening, just irritating. You come to your conclusions out of virtually nowhere. The mere thought that you are attempting to consider the bible as holding scientific fact is quite possibly the most moronic statement I've ever heard in my life. Religion, and the bible specifically, held science back for ages. If the bible is so scientific, then why wasn't science encouraged by the church? Could it be, perhaps, that science jeopardized the hold religion had over the community? *gasp* Noooo. Never.

Now, if you think GAM went and copy and pasted from a website, then you may be less intelligent than I originally thought. It's not a lot of fun when people quote the bible to argue against your beliefs, is it?

To insist so adamantly in your god is denying logic and blatantly overlooking the obvious.

It's hard to argue with a person who does that.


"haven't you ever used the term "sunrise" or "sunset" If you ever have, then you are unscientific, because you actually believe the sun rises and falls. You do! Well, if you are going to use your logic on yourself you do. Maddening aren't I?"

Are you serious?

In the beginning, god created the heaven and the Earth, but no one was there to see it. YOU actually believe that the words "let there be light" MADE the sun which we FIGURATIVELY say rises and falls.

Back when your church taught that the Earth was the center of the universe, I'm sure people believed that it rose and fell. But we know it's crap.



There's too much blood in my caffeine stream.

ScottaWhite wrote:I cannot begin to take the hours neccessary to answer, (sorry, I forgot)every "question" you all propose. GAM either did a lot of research on his own to try to prove his point, or he went to a website and pasted. a bit of both.

Cool I guess, but unreasonable to ask me to point by point explain his fallacies. I can tell you however, that the verse from Daniel chapter 4 was a dream. In fact, look for yourself at verse 10 "Thus were the visions of mine head, in my bed..." Kinda stinks that I pointed that out doesn't it. Would be like me calling you a liar after you told a story about how you could shoot laser beams from your rectum....in your dream.And what of Job and Matthew? You pointed out Job specifically, so I'm guessing you either didn't read the story or were ignoring the parts that didn't support your postulate.

Quote:

I can't locate the reference right now, but there is a verse that says "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (that would be your proof text for anatomy/physiology. Wow! The Bible knew that before medicine many centuries later were still "bleeding" people to get rid of their illnesses.

Really, I'm not aware of an approved therapy that involves draining blood out of the body. If you mean leech therapy, it's their saliva that's an anti-coagulant.

BTW, if you live in a time where hand to hand combat is a reality (what with raiders, thieves etc) you'd have to be an incredibly stupid person to not realize that once you're out of blood, you're out of life.

Quote:

There are times in the Bible when the word usage is clearly metaphorical and allegorical. And you decide when that is by looking at the context of the entire passage, not just select snippets you use to try to defend your diatribes.

You're using THE SAME TACTIC! Ever heard the maxim that when you point one finger, 3 point back at yourself?

You're not being deftly logical, you're being petulant now.

Quote:

"the ends of the earth"? c'mon you are grasping for anything. Here, God is putting Job in his rightful place. He is making Job realize how insignifigant and stupid he is to question the soveregnty of God.

"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)"
'Splain that one chum. Now let's recap... you cannot AT ALL have a spherical object that has EDGES. Do I need to explain rudimentary geometry for you? This isn't inference.


"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)"
Explain this as well... I, for one, have never yet seen a canopy that wasn't to some degree flat and had a definite end.

Quote:

Haven't you ever used the term "sunrise" or "sunset" If you ever have, then you are unscientific, because you actually believe the sun rises and falls. You do! Well, if you are going to use your logic on yourself you do. Maddening aren't I?

Hogwash. The sun RISES above the HORIZON and sets beneath it. Again, this is not logical, this is petulance, the point of reference is the Horizon.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Tristan, "why wasn't science encouraged by the church? Could it be, perhaps, that science jeopardized the hold religion had over the community".

First the Roman Catholic church is not my church. Never has been. The RCC persecuted baptists, protestants, jews, gypsies muslims. Why? Because any other beliefs (scientific or religious) that went against so much as TRADITIONS of the RCC threatened their hold on power.

GAM, you keep going on about the edges of the earth. It is a figure of speech man! Just like we would use phrases such as "I'm not stopping til I hit China" "I beat my brains out trying to figure that out" "I went to the ends of the earth trying to find the perfect gift"

There is not approved therapy now that involves draining blood to cure sickness (aside from a transfusion) I'm speaking to times past going back to the 1700's, where doctors would try to drain blood into a bowl, in order to relieve sickness. (Job was written before the 1700's)

And Tristan, I don't mind people quoting the Bible to make a point. Use it in its full context, not an isolated verse or two, that mean something different when removed from the entire passage.

And does it drive you crazy that I can show instances of accurate science in the Bible? Does that offend your sense of self-importance or your religion of atheism?

The Bible also says somewhere that the earth is God's footstool. Now are you going to say that is scientifically inaccurate or think for just a second, that it is used in a metaphorical context?


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

ScottaWhite wrote:Tristan, "why wasn't science encouraged by the church? Could it be, perhaps, that science jeopardized the hold religion had over the community".

First the Roman Catholic church is not my church. Never has been. The RCC persecuted baptists, protestants, jews, gypsies muslims. Why? Because any other beliefs (scientific or religious) that went against so much as TRADITIONS of the RCC threatened their hold on power.

GAM, you keep going on about the edges of the earth. It is a figure of speech man! Just like we would use phrases such as "I'm not stopping til I hit China" "I beat my brains out trying to figure that out" "I went to the ends of the earth trying to find the perfect gift"

There is not approved therapy now that involves draining blood to cure sickness (aside from a transfusion) I'm speaking to times past going back to the 1700's, where doctors would try to drain blood into a bowl, in order to relieve sickness. (Job was written before the 1700's)

And Tristan, I don't mind people quoting the Bible to make a point. Use it in its full context, not an isolated verse or two, that mean something different when removed from the entire passage.

And does it drive you crazy that I can show instances of accurate science in the Bible? Does that offend your sense of self-importance or your religion of atheism?

The Bible also says somewhere that the earth is God's footstool. Now are you going to say that is scientifically inaccurate or think for just a second, that it is used in a metaphorical context?

I think it is entirely possibly that you've developed italics turrets. You really may want to get that checked out.

And no, it doesn't drive me crazy because you've done no such thing. You may, in your warped sense of reality, believe you've showed science in the bible, but you've yet to do so.

Also, since you can't seem to refrain from calling atheism a religion, from this point forward I will no longer refer to the bible as such, but rather The Little Book of Lies People Too Weak to Think for Themselves Believe. How's that sound? Hopefully not too offensive. This will only be directed to you, however. I will gladly call it the bible when replying to anyone else; you know, the people I still respect.

First off, I can't believe this is still going.

Second, it's cute to see you found a dictionary to make yourself appear more intelligent.

Third, Darkstars FTW. New sig, thanks.




[Darkstars:]I got an email today from the universe telling me it created itself.

Quote:

Also, since you can't seem to refrain from calling atheism a religion, from this point forward I will no longer refer to the bible as such, but rather The Little Book of Lies People Too Weak to Think for Themselves Believe. How's that sound? Hopefully not too offensive.

ScottaWhite wrote:Tristan, "why wasn't science encouraged by the church? Could it be, perhaps, that science jeopardized the hold religion had over the community".

First the Roman Catholic church is not my church. Never has been. The RCC persecuted baptists, protestants, jews, gypsies muslims. Why? Because any other beliefs (scientific or religious) that went against so much as TRADITIONS of the RCC threatened their hold on power.

Who controls the content of the LBoLPTWtTfTB that you believe in? Hmm.... I think it is the RCC, unless you are Jewish or Mormon, which have their own interpretation.

Now, to move this in another light -- Athiesm is not a religion, but there are athiestic religions. See if you can wrap your noodle around that one

ScottaWhite wrote:GAM, you keep going on about the edges of the earth. It is a figure of speech man! Just like we would use phrases such as "I'm not stopping til I hit China" "I beat my brains out trying to figure that out" "I went to the ends of the earth trying to find the perfect gift"

Ahh, so what else is a figure of speech in the Bible? What about water into wine, walking on the water, etc, etc, etc? If you want to start talking about figures of speech, then try this on for size: When Jesus said "and one of you shall betray me." Was that an accusation or a lament? If you actually look at a text that was written in the time of Jesus (called The Gospel of Judas Iscariot) and not the bible (which was written at closest, 85 years after the death of Jesus, and farthest 325 years after, and that's also discarding the Latin Vulgate translation, and the Council of Nicea's pagan leader editing and deciding of Christian Canon): you'll have the answer.

You have to look at what you have, in this case you have a lot of use of words that point pretty definitely at a Flat earth (ie, edges, canopies, ends... etc), in the case of not having definite information, you have to seek corroboration from texts of the time. At the time of the Bible's translation, and canonization, you have the prevailing opinion by the Romans that the earth was flat. They didn't have a problem eviscerating the Bible's texts from over 80 books to just 27 in the New Testament alone, so... why would they have a problem with shaping the language to fit their world.

I mean, it's pretty plain that you're going to Church on the wrong day if you're going on Sunday. The Sabbath is still Friday at dusk till Saturday at dusk. But maybe you're following the Catholics' lead after all.

Quote:

There is not approved therapy now that involves draining blood to cure sickness (aside from a transfusion) I'm speaking to times past going back to the 1700's, where doctors would try to drain blood into a bowl, in order to relieve sickness. (Job was written before the 1700's)

Uh huh.. there are also people that take up venomous snakes to prove their faith: which is pretty dumb when you figure out that most snakes object to being handled.

The blood-letting in the 1700's (it was actually pre-renaissance because of the moratorium on autopsies that was imposed by not only Roman Catholicism but the Church of Englad (ie Protestants) ) was meant to drain evil out of the body: something tells me that evil is something done by the person not borne in their blood.

Quote:

And does it drive you crazy that I can show instances of accurate science in the Bible? Does that offend your sense of self-importance or your religion of atheism?

Would it surprise you that a lot of the science in the bible actually predates the bible and the Torah by several thousand years? Instances of the use of meridians and parallels were in Tibetan and Indian Buddhist teachings, and they were pretty sure that the world was round.

The Bible also says somewhere that the earth is God's footstool. Now are you going to say that is scientifically inaccurate or think for just a second, that it is used in a metaphorical context?


Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.