Creationists VS Creationist

[time]

And every point of modern science and me disagrees with you and this angel, in a scientific debate you can't call in angels to back up your position.

Why not??? Science only covers the present.

 

[dawiyd]

Why not???

Because I can do exactly the same thing, without any backing or evidence that such an event occurred, or you can't actually be sure that it was an angle, for all you know it may be the "devil" appearing to you in disguise.

 

[maleparent]

And every point of modern science and me disagrees with you and this angel, in a scientific debate you can't call in angels to back up your position.

i said that science is not evil but wrong. i belive that it will realise its mistake and that all scientists will come together to rejoice under the banner of our lord JESUS CHRIST.

I read about a mass conversion in a lab once. They got some results that they didn't know how to explain. one of the scientists was a christian though and did know how to explain it. He got out his BIBLE and preached for a while and everyone in the lab came to realise JESUS IS LORD.

Sceince will come around. I pray that you will to.

 

[dawiyd]

i said that science is not evil but wrong.

When did I ever say you did, you actually have no evidence science is wrong.

i belive that it will realise its mistake and that all scientists will come together to rejoice under the banner of our lord JESUS CHRIST.

I doubt if any Jewish scientist was proven wrong they still wouldn't recognize Jesus as l-rd. Any again i'm asking you to show science is wrong instead of casting out baseless assertions.

I read about a mass conversion in a lab once. They got some results that they didn't know how to explain. one of the scientists was a christian though and did know how to explain it. He got out his BIBLE and preached for a while and everyone in the lab came to realise JESUS IS LORD.

Typical creationist rhetoric, actually provided some sources and stop spreading propaganda.

Sceince will come around. I pray that you will to.

Well I do pray, infact I pray three times a day and on the Sabbath four times a day.

 

[dawiyd]

Why not??? Science only covers the present.

No science covers facts.

 

[JohnR7]

JohnR7 is going to have problems with that because the actual scientific evidence pretty clearly shows that snakes are over 100 million years old, rather than the 6000 years that his myth requires.

No problem, because it does not matter what was here before. Instead of calling it the GAP they should call it the DSM for Does Not Matter. It simply does not matter what happened or what you think may have happened before the Garden of Eden.

The challange is always the same. Prove that there was no one named Adam or Eve that lived in the cradle of civilization 6,000 years ago. Prove that there was no snake and prove that there was no garden. You can not falsify any of it. Esp. talking snakes, becaues I know to many people that think they talk to their dog and there is another story in the Bible about a talking donkey.

 

[dawiyd]

No problem, because it does not matter what was here before. Instead of calling it the GAP they should call it the DSM for Does Not Matter. It simply does not matter what happened or what you think may have happened before the Garden of Eden.

The challange is always the same. Prove that there was no one named Adam or Eve that lived in the cradle of civilization 6,000 years ago. Prove that there was no snake and prove that there was no garden. You can not falsify any of it. Esp. talking snakes, becaues I know to many people that think they talk to their dog and there is another story in the Bible about a talking donkey.

John the burden of proof is upon us.

 

[JohnR7]

John the burden of proof is upon us.

No one can falsify the Bible and a lot of the Bible has already been proven to be true.

 

[dawiyd]

No one can falsify the Bible and a lot of the Bible has already been proven to be true.

Then we should have no problem proving it eh?

 

[JohnR7]

Then we should have no problem proving it eh?

They have been using archeology for the last 200 years to prove the Bible is true. Now we are getting more and more DNA evidence to show that the Bible is true. Then we have the study of langage that shows the Bible is true. So there is three witness there that are all the tools of science.

Archeology, DNA and linguistics show the Bible to be true.

 

[dawiyd]

They have been using archeology for the last 200 years to prove the Bible is true. Now we are getting more and more DNA evidence to show that the Bible is true. Then we have the study of langage that shows the Bible is true. So there is three witness there that are all the tools of science.

Archeology, DNA and linguistics show the Bible to be true.

No, they have been using archaeology to show that places existed, the bible could be just using them as reference points.
In 2000 years time, if a person finds a copy of Harry Potter, and a Archaeological Dig finds Kings Cross Station, does that mean Harry Potter is true? No, it just means that the book had actual references that existed, not that the content of the book is all true.

John, from what Have seen you post about DNA, you have very little knowledge about DNA, and you just twist whatever you find from a book you are reading to try suit your ill agenda for the day.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

They have been using archeology for the last 200 years to prove the Bible is true. Now we are getting more and more DNA evidence to show that the Bible is true. Then we have the study of langage that shows the Bible is true. So there is three witness there that are all the tools of science.

Archeology, DNA and linguistics show the Bible to be true.

Neither DNA nor linguistics show the Bible to be true. Linguistics, in particular, demonstrates that the biblical tale of Babel is false.

Archeology has verified that some places mentioned in the Bible actually existed. Which does absolutely nothing to show the rest of the Bible as true.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And every point of modern science and me disagrees with you and this angel, in a scientific debate you can't call in angels to back up your position.

Poe's law strikes again!

F.B.

 

[time]

Because I can do exactly the same thing, without any backing or evidence that such an event occurred, or you can't actually be sure that it was an angle, for all you know it may be the "devil" appearing to you in disguise.

But the key factor there, is that it won't agree with the bible, where the angel does. If the angel did not, it would be wrong.

 

[time]

No science covers facts.

Our facts are in the present, all else is not covered at all, save by inference.

 

[JohnR7]

you have very little knowledge about DNA,

I do not buy into the lies if that is what you mean. I have not been indoctrinated to follow the party line. I do not follow their programing. That does not mean I do not know anything about it. I know more about it than 95% of the people out there. Of course that is not saying very much.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I do not buy into the lies if that is what you mean. I have not been indoctrinated to follow the party line. I do not follow their programing. That does not mean I do not know anything about it. I know more about it than 95% of the people out there. Of course that is not saying very much.

Yes, it does mean you do not know anything about it. You constantly demonstrate this.

 

[JohnR7]

Linguistics, in particular, demonstrates that the biblical tale of Babel is false.

So are you suggesting that everyone in the world today still speaks the same language?

Do you have any history book at all that you can show is more accurate than the Bible is?

Josephus had a very nice life. Why? Because people wanted to have a good place in his history book. If he told the truth about people, they would have killed him.

Actually, they did kill Paul and Jesus and a few of the others, for telling the truth. Now after they gave their life for the truth, you want to call them a liar.

 

[JohnR7]

, if a person finds a copy of Harry Potter.

The gospel according to Harry Potter. Ok, now we know where your coming from.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

So are you suggesting that everyone in the world today still speaks the same language?

Since I nowhere suggested that...no.

Do you have any history book at all that you can show is more accurate than the Bible is?

Josephus had a very nice life. Why? Because people wanted to have a good place in his history book. If he told the truth about people, they would have killed him.

Actually, they did kill Paul and Jesus and a few of the others, for telling the truth. Now after they gave their life for the truth, you want to call them a liar.

All of the rest is just rant. Linguistics proves that the biblical tale of Babel is false; it does not in any way support the bible.