Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[HitchSlap]

You truncated that on purpose, didn't you?

You're only confusing yourself.

Says the one who thinks three are one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is more reason to believe the bitter water was beer .. Budweiser beer in fact. It made her belly swell and her thigh rot. Yeap, it was beer alright. I bet you will tell us next the Bible mentions USA.

"Thigh" does not mean thigh in that verse. It is a euphemism for genitals.

 

[AV1611VET]

Says the one who thinks three are one.

I got it from someone who knows They are.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I got it from someone who knows They are.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Equivocation error.

 

[HitchSlap]

I got it from someone who knows They are.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Someone needs remedial math. Do you think he was high when he wrote that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Equivocation error.

At least you can put a fancy term to what's confusing you.

(The truncation by HitchSlap though was a cheap shot.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think he was high when he wrote that?

He exposed you, didn't he?

 

[HitchSlap]

He exposed you, didn't he?

Are you high?

 

[Edmond Smith]

And maybe you've heard this before:

God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Therefore, Ray Charles is god.

Love isn't really blind you know. You see just what you want to see. It's a matter of perspective. So, premise 2 is incorrect therefore Ray Charles isn't god.

 

[HitchSlap]

Love isn't really blind you know. You see just what you want to see. It's a matter of perspective. So, premise 2 is incorrect therefore Ray Charles isn't god.

I'm glad you recognize false premises lead to false conclusions. This will help you understand why I reject your conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least you can put a fancy term to what's confusing you.

(The truncation by HitchSlap though was a cheap shot.)

Wrong, as usual. You are the one that is confused. Too bad that you did not understand a simple identification of your error.

 

[Smidlee]

"Thigh" does not mean thigh in that verse. It is a euphemism for genitals.

It's the same Hebrew word for thigh in other verses. No mention of abortion,child or Budweiser beer in these verses.

 

[Edmond Smith]

I'm glad you recognize false premises lead to false conclusions. This will help you understand why I reject your conclusion.

why?
Rejecting the conclusion doesn't show it's wrong. I did at least show the premise incorrect. You could have the respect to do the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's the same Hebrew word for thigh in other verses. No mention of abortion,child or Budweiser beer in these verses.

Sometimes the meaning has to be gleaned from the context. I am sorry that you do not understand your own book.

 

[Smidlee]

Sometimes the meaning has to be gleaned from the context. I am sorry that you do not understand your own book.

I understand you are seeing something that is not there. One of the things God hates is shedding innocent blood which history is filled with. Would you want to be judge by your own judgement that is God abort you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand you are seeing something that is not there. One of the things God hates is shedding innocent blood which history is filled with. Would you want to be judge by your own judgement that is God abort you?

No, I am not. Why are you refusing to see what is obvious? And please, you need to read the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament had no problem shedding innocent blood. And watch the personal attacks. I would suggest a retraction or an apology.

 

[Smidlee]

No, I am not. Why are you refusing to see what is obvious? And please, you need to read the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament had no problem shedding innocent blood. And watch the personal attacks. I would suggest a retraction or an apology.

God judge nations who were guilty of shedding innocent blood. If someone build a time-machine and tried to abort me before I was born I would try to stop them. Wouldn't you?

 

[Davian]

There is only one.

Yours is one of the many flavours of creation stories. As you say, yours is just recent.

My ideas have to do with where science went wrong.

Have you come up with anything yet?

 

[Hoghead1]

What exactly do you mean, Edmond, when you speak of God as being outside of time?

 

[In situ]

Let's just say then that the environment was much different -- MUCH different -- in Genesis 1, than it is today.

And what would these condition need to be?

And to apply today's laws and constants to Genesis 1 will yield conflicting -- MUCH conflicting -- results.

Obviously it is so, and that is also the reason why the biblical myth about how the world came to be has no credits and is not believable for a person of reason.