Guam kingfisher

[Diamond72]

Like I said before, regular (annual) flood in a flood plain or something out of the ordinary.

what is worse a 100 year or a 500 year flood? Right now it is just the opposite. The Euphrates river is drying up and that is why underwater archeology is beginning to surface there.

 

[Diamond72]

Pre stored information passed on to the next generation tucked away in stem cells.

Monarch butterflies can pass on information about their long-distance migration to their offspring through a process known as "transgenerational inheritance." This involves the transfer of epigenetic marks on their DNA, which allows their offspring to inherit information about the environmental conditions their parents experienced and use this information to navigate during their own migration. Therefore, while no individual butterfly completes the entire migration, the species as a whole is able to maintain its journey through a combination of genetic and environmental cues and the transfer of information to the next generation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

what is worse a 100 year or a 500 year flood? Right now it is just the opposite. The Euphrates river is drying up and that is why underwater archeology is beginning to surface there.

The example you gave from Kuwait isn't in the flood plain, its from just outside the delta.

The sites being revealed by reduced water in the Euphrates are those at the bottoms of reservoirs that were inundated in the last century or so. None of these are relevant to the ancient superflood you keep trying to show evidence of.

 

[BeyondET]

Monarch butterflies can pass on information about their long-distance migration to their offspring through a process known as "transgenerational inheritance." This involves the transfer of epigenetic marks on their DNA, which allows their offspring to inherit information about the environmental conditions their parents experienced and use this information to navigate during their own migration. Therefore, while no individual butterfly completes the entire migration, the species as a whole is able to maintain its journey through a combination of genetic and environmental cues and the transfer of information to the next generation.

God's creation is amazing, and they know exactly the location in Mexico its only just a few places there. There's some ideas on how they do it but it's not totally known. Similar to the caterpillar to butterfly, certain stem cells turn off and on during the transformation but what causes it to do what it does isn't completely understood.

 

[Diamond72]

What does this have to do with science? didn't you make some claim about abraham and science?

Abraham's education in Ur is inferred. Ur was a significant city in ancient Mesopotamia, known for its wealth, trade, and culture. Scholars studied mathematics, astronomy, and other subjects.

Ur was on the Persian Gulf and was a thriving port city. Over time as the water level began to drop they became less prosperous of a city. So the water level continued to drop down over the generations.

Like other cities at the time, they were know for their Ziggurts.

 

[Diamond72]

God's creation is amazing, and they know exactly the location in Mexico its only just a few places there.

The Painted Lady butterfly in the middle east, has a widespread distribution and is found in many parts of the world. The species is known for its long-distance migrations, which can take it across entire continents.

 

[BeyondET]

The Painted Lady butterfly in the middle east, has a widespread distribution and is found in many parts of the world. The species is known for its long-distance migrations, which can take it across entire continents.

The Arctic Tern travels pole to pole always chasing a perpetual summer lol.

 

[Diamond72]

None of these are relevant to the ancient superflood you keep trying to show evidence of.

The evidence is the story we read in the Bible. YOUR job is to prove the BIBLE wrong and you have 100% failed to do that. IS there a Tigris river: YES. Is there a Euphrates river: YES. The Bible is already 100% correct that there is a Tigris and Euphrates rivers. You ADMIT the river exists and the Bible is true. "Were there men on the earth at that time"? Yes, archeology shows us that men lived in the Tigris Euphrates river valley at that time. You have failed so show that no one was living there at the time. Were there wicked people on the earth at that time? You have failed to show that people are not and were not WICKED at that time in history. Were the men attracted to the beautiful women and did they want to marry them? You have failed to prove that women are not beautiful and men do not want to marry them. God said that the days of man will be limited to 120 days. You have failed to prove that man can not live to be 120 years of age. "every inclination of their heart was evil all the time" Again you have failed to prove that there were no evil people alive at the time of the flood.

Ok, now in Genesis 6:7 you decide to speak up after you fail six verses in a row to do your job to prove the Bible is wrong. (Not accurate or true) You want me to ignore that you failed six times. Yet you can not prove that I have failed even once in showing how accurate and true the Bible is. We read: "I will blot out man" for God was grieved that He made them." The word here for "Man" is Adamah. We see this word 316 times. There are many Hebrew words that are translated into "MAN". But that simply does not apply here. The MAN we are talking about we read about in verse Genesis 2:27 "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

First of all you failed to prove that God did not form "man" out of the dust of the ground. IN FACT atheist Carl Sagan on PBS Cosmos tells us that we are star stuff. WE are made up of elements that were forged in the furnace of a star.. The Bible uses the word: "dust". Dust is where man came from and man shall return to the dust. As they say, ashes to ashes, dust to dust. The cycle of life. Many, many, many books, infinite numbers of books can be written about ONE WORD the word dust. You have failed to show that dust does not exist.

Line by line verse by verse, word by word I am 100% proving the Bible to be accurate and true. Any you have failed to even once prove that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true. Pick any word, pick any sentence, pick any verse, pick anything you want, and do your job and prove that the Bible is not accurate and true.

YOU CAN NOT use a straw man argument. You cannot make something up in your imagination and then prove yourself wrong. WE already know you are wrong and we know the things you make up are wrong. Every attempt you have ever made to show the Bible is not accurate and true you have failed to accomplish your objective.

Of course, now you are really in trouble. You have to prove that nothing does not exist. You have to prove that God did not destroy or blot "Adamah" out. FIRST of all it is going to be very easy for me to prove that there have been catastrophic floods throughout history. in this area. Your attempt to prove that have NOT been floods has failed because the Scientific archeology evidence proves you wrong.

There are MANY, I repeat MANY remains of animals in this valley that were killed in a flood. Remember it is the floods that made this land so fertile and productive for growing food to feed people. We could go on and on and on with book after book about this and you have produced nothing, zero evidence to back up your bogus claim that there were no floods and nothing died in those floods.

Right now the only research that has been done is on the Black Sea. They can show cities that are now under the water. Just like the Euphrates river is going dry and cities and civilizations are beginning to emerge that were flooded and people perished. So the evidence shows us you are wrong in your claim that there was no flood and that people and animals did not perish in that flood.

There is plenty of tragedy and disaster today. Over 22,000 people just died in an earthquake. They were buried alive. There are stories about this in the Bible. Even the Bible talks about how they scratch at the ground trying to rescue and save the people that were buried alive in the earthquake. People grumble and complain and claim there is no God and the Bible is not true. We run into depressed, miserable people all the time that do nothing but grumble and complain rather than give thanks, praise, honor, and glory to God.

We struggle to try to live right before God so we are not considered to be evil. So we do not end up with the skeptics, scoffers & infidels who always seem to be so miserable. People do not like when I point that out. People like Hawkings in a wheelchair who had to allow the bot that you hate to speak for him. Or the other Stephen the Harvard professor who like Hawkings was a brilliant talented intelligent well-published man of science. Yet he battled cancer and he lost that battle too early in life.

So line upon line, verse upon verse we can walk through the Bible and I can prove the Bible to be accurate and true while you fail in your attempt to show the Bible is NOT accurate and true.

On the other hand, there is Neil DeGrasse who says I am not going to waste my time on this. I have work to do. If you want to say God created the laws of Physics that is fine. I have no problem with that. So if you want to waste your time trying to do the impossible and prove the Bible is not true then you will have nothing to show for your failed attempt. Because all you are doing is proving yourself wrong. You falsify the product of your imagination. You make up a story and then tell us your story is a lie and not true.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Abraham's education in Ur is inferred.

So, in other words, an assumption. There is nothing about the story of Abraham that indicates he was any sort of scholar or scribe.

 

[Diamond72]

The Arctic Tern travels pole to pole always chasing a perpetual summer lol.

Summer is to hot, winter is to cold, spring or fall would be nice. When I was younger and could travel like that to follow the warm weather I liked winter and I liked to ski. When I was younger we loved to play in the snow.

 

[Diamond72]

There is nothing about the story of Abraham that indicates he was any sort of scholar or scribe.

I am sorry to tell you this but within the Hasidic tradition, Abraham is regarded as a scholar and spiritual master. Anything contrary to that would be anti Semitic. Even as hard as I work to study and learn their tradition there are "Jewish" people here that accuse me after all the effort I put in to understand what they believe.

The Bible does say he was rich. He paid tithe on his spoils of war.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Dear non-participant readers: Perhaps against better judgement, I am going to respond to this rambling mess. Because it goes all over the place I will need to break the text in many places to respond to it bit by bit. This will mean that the response chain that will likely be difficult to follow (or write) given the nature of the board software. I wish it were otherwise. (Though looking at the text, I'm still not sure what some of it is about. Perhaps I'll figure it out during the writing process. Geronimo!)

The evidence is the story we read in the Bible.

[This was in reference to proof of the superflood of Noah.]

Sorry, that's not how you prove the text is right. That is the ultimate claim -- the Flood happened. You can't prove something using the text that claimed it happened.

YOUR job is to prove the BIBLE wrong and you have 100% failed to do that.

Is it? As I recall, it is YOU that has repeatedly claimed that "Science 100% proves the bible". I have claimed that you are wrong, and you would be if even a *single* part of the bible is not proven by science.

In fact since *you* are making the claim ("Science 100% proves the bible") it is *you* that has the burden to show that claim to be true.

IS there a Tigris river: YES. Is there a Euphrates river: YES.

And how does a fact of geography "prove the bible"? (Hint: it does not.) That parts of the bible refer to real places does not make even that specific part true and certainly not the whole thing. (Again, that's not how evidence works.) What does the reference to that river mean? It could be reflective of a completely made up story set in a real place all the way to a completely true story. The use of a real place in the text doesn't tell you one way or the other that the story is true or not.

The Bible is already 100% correct that there is a Tigris and Euphrates rivers. You ADMIT the river exists and the Bible is true.

You say "ADMIT" like it is some sort of "confession" that I acknowledge the existence of a real river. Again, this does not make even the stories that mention that river true, and certainly not the whole thing.

"Were there men on the earth at that time"? Yes, archeology shows us that men lived in the Tigris Euphrates river valley at that time. You have failed so show that no one was living there at the time.

Why would I have to show that no one lived in Mesopotamia? I've never made any such claim. This doesn't make any sense at all.

Were there wicked people on the earth at that time? You have failed to show that people are not and were not WICKED at that time in history.

Wicked isn't a scientific concept, why should we use science to measure "wickedness"? (And I am arguing from a scientific point of view as you clearly know.)

Were the men attracted to the beautiful women and did they want to marry them? You have failed to prove that women are not beautiful and men do not want to marry them.

Beauty is largely subjective. Not a subject of science. Not sure what this is doing your response.

God said that the days of man will be limited to 120 days. You have failed to prove that man can not live to be 120 years of age.

Don't you ever see those stories on the news about the oldest person dying at 117 or 121 or what ever? You claims are getting weirder and weirder.

"every inclination of their heart was evil all the time" Again you have failed to prove that there were no evil people alive at the time of the flood.

Evil is not a scientific measureable, so this claim has nothing to do with science being for or against it.

Ok, now in Genesis 6:7 you decide to speak up after you fail six verses in a row to do your job to prove the Bible is wrong.

What six verses?

(Not accurate or true) You want me to ignore that you failed six times.

Failed six times to do what?

Yet you can not prove that I have failed even once in showing how accurate and true the Bible is.

Go see the various threads (including this one) where you have made scientific claims about the bible.

We read: "I will blot out man" for God was grieved that He made them." The word here for "Man" is Adamah. We see this word 316 times. There are many Hebrew words that are translated into "MAN". But that simply does not apply here. The MAN we are talking about we read about in verse Genesis 2:27 "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Now we're playing word puzzles? I have no idea what you are getting on about here.

[Now we go into the section on "dust".]

First of all you failed to prove that God did not form "man" out of the dust of the ground.

This sounds like your erroneous assumption that I need disprove every verse in the bible. I have neither the time, nor inclination to do so, nor am I required to do so in answer to your claim that the bible is 100% proven by science.

IN FACT atheist Carl Sagan on PBS Cosmos tells us that we are star stuff. WE are made up of elements that were forged in the furnace of a star..

This is indeed a fact, but it is not from Sagan, not even in the popular culture. Joni Mitchell was singing about it 10 years before Cosmos, but if you want a real reference try:

Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler, & Hoyle 1957, Rev. Mod. Phys., 29, 547

Where does the bible discuss Big Bang nucleosynthesis or stellar nucleosynthesis?

The Bible uses the word: "dust". Dust is where man came from and man shall return to the dust. As they say, ashes to ashes, dust to dust. The cycle of life. Many, many, many books, infinite numbers of books can be written about ONE WORD the word dust. You have failed to show that dust does not exist.

Wait!? Why do I need to disprove dust? (Everyone knows dust exists.) The existence of dust does not prove (or disprove) anything about the bible.

Line by line verse by verse, word by word I am 100% proving the Bible to be accurate and true.

It's kind sad that you think this is the case. [Other readers: Should I go easy on them and invoke mercy? Nah, let's continue...]

Any you have failed to even once prove that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true. Pick any word, pick any sentence, pick any verse, pick anything you want, and do your job and prove that the Bible is not accurate and true.

Perhaps you are not aware of these things, since they don't apply to you, but I am not allowed to argue that the bible is false, or fiction, etc. There are limits to what I can do here without being banned.

YOU CAN NOT use a straw man argument.

I would never.

You cannot make something up in your imagination and then prove yourself wrong.

Now you think I am imagining things and using them in our "debates"? [citation needed]

WE already know you are wrong and we know the things you make up are wrong. Every attempt you have ever made to show the Bible is not accurate and true you have failed to accomplish your objective.

The only thing I am trying to do accomplish is to show you that the bible isn't "100% proven by science".

Of course, now you are really in trouble.

Oooohhhh. I'm scared now.

You have to prove that nothing does not exist.

I do now? How do you figure that?

You have to prove that God did not destroy or blot "Adamah" out.

Don't know what that is.

FIRST of all it is going to be very easy for me to prove that there have been catastrophic floods throughout history. in this area.

NO ONE DISPUTES THAT. (Now it seems that you're back to Mesopotamia, OK fine then.)

Your attempt to prove that have NOT been floods has failed because the Scientific archeology evidence proves you wrong.

Again, no one disputes the existence of floods in the Tigris-Euphrates river system.

There are MANY, I repeat MANY remains of animals in this valley that were killed in a flood. Remember it is the floods that made this land so fertile and productive for growing food to feed people.

Again, these are common facts about Mesopotamia. I learned them when I was 13 in World History. What the point of this?

We could go on and on and on with book after book about this and you have produced nothing, zero evidence to back up your bogus claim that there were no floods and nothing died in those floods.

I have *NEVER* made such a claim about no floods, or no floods in Mesopotamia or other rivers, nor about nobody dying in a flood. Don't distort our conversations. It is unbecoming.

Right now the only research that has been done is on the Black Sea. They can show cities that are now under the water.

I have not heard of cities, but I have heard of settlements and human habitation below what is not the Black Sea. That the water level was lower during the last glacial maximum is a well known fact. (Or at least it is a fact I have known for a long time.) But, the Black Sea (or the prior Euxine Lake) is not connected to the Euphrates.

Just like the Euphrates river is going dry and cities and civilizations are beginning to emerge that were flooded and people perished. So the evidence shows us you are wrong in your claim that there was no flood and that people and animals did not perish in that flood.

Again I have not claimed there were never any floods. What I will state (as others have) is that there is no evidence of a global flood. Ever.

There is plenty of tragedy and disaster today. Over 22,000 people just died in an earthquake. They were buried alive.

This is not relevant.

There are stories about this in the Bible. Even the Bible talks about how they scratch at the ground trying to rescue and save the people that were buried alive in the earthquake.

My copy of the bible was printed before the recent earthquake in Turkey. Where should I look to find stories about it?

People grumble and complain and claim there is no God and the Bible is not true. We run into depressed, miserable people all the time that do nothing but grumble and complain rather than give thanks, praise, honor, and glory to God.

Not relevant. (This is veering toward preaching, which is off topic in this sub-forum.)

We struggle to try to live right before God so we are not considered to be evil. So we do not end up with the skeptics, scoffers & infidels who always seem to be so miserable. People do not like when I point that out. People like Hawkings in a wheelchair who had to allow the bot that you hate to speak for him. Or the other Stephen the Harvard professor who like Hawkings was a brilliant talented intelligent well-published man of science. Yet he battled cancer and he lost that battle too early in life.

More preaching. Don't care.

So line upon line, verse upon verse we can walk through the Bible and I can prove the Bible to be accurate and true while you fail in your attempt to show the Bible is NOT accurate and true.

See the rules.

On the other hand, there is Neil DeGrasse who says I am not going to waste my time on this.

It's Neil *Tyson*. deGrasse is his middle name. (He also doesn't find your god to be compelling.)

I have work to do.

Indeed.

If you want to say God created the laws of Physics that is fine.

I would not make such a claim.

I have no problem with that. So if you want to waste your time trying to do the impossible and prove the Bible is not true then you will have nothing to show for your failed attempt.

I have no interested in the broad nature of the bible. Other people care about ancient middle eastern texts, I do not.

Because all you are doing is proving yourself wrong. You falsify the product of your imagination. You make up a story and then tell us your story is a lie and not true.

False.

 

[Diamond72]

Sorry, that's not how you prove the text is right. That is the ultimate claim -- the Flood happened. You can't prove something using the text that claimed it happened.

You are doing what you are accusing me of. You can find nothing on me so you just convict yourself.

 

[Diamond72]

As I recall, it is YOU that has repeatedly claimed that "Science 100% proves the bible".

Correct, glad to see you are learning the lesson.

That parts of the bible refer to real places does not make even that specific part true

Truth is truth, period the end. You have failed 100% to disprove the bible and I have 100% proven the bible to be accurate and true.

False.

Correct, you falsify yourself, again and again, you prove yourself wrong.

I have no interested in the broad nature of the bible.

why are we here talking about the Bible if you have no interest? I enjoy shooting fish in a barrel because it is so easy to show you have failed again and again in your attempt to falsify the Written Word of the living God. Even though I know you are going to come to a saving knowledge of the truth.

It's Neil *Tyson*. deGrasse is his middle name.

You now just like the chat bot knows who I am talking about. deGrasse is all I need. We not only fought the French in the American Revolution. We chased them all the way down to New Orleans just to get them out of here. I just put the neil on there to show a little bit of respect for what he has accomplished

Don't care.

Good, I am glad you do not care. People use to get upset with me when I was critical of that guy in the wheel chair.

My copy of the bible was printed before the recent earthquake in Turkey. Where should I look to find stories about it?

numbers 16:32 is an example "and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households, and all those associated with Korah, together with their possessions". There are others.

Isaiah 5:14
Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

I would not make such a claim.

Degrasse does not want to waste his time. He has bigger fish to fry.

Again I have not claimed there were never any floods.

yes you have. you really grasp at straws in your failed attempt to disprove the Bible.

And how does a fact of geography "prove the bible"? (Hint: it does not.)

prove it, you continue to make claims that you 100% fail to prove. You really do not make any attempt at all to back up what you are saying.

That the water level was lower during the last glacial maximum is a well known fact.

Exactly and the cause of Noah's flood was water from the melting glaciers that were being held back but the day came when the water could be held back no more. Noah warned them for 120 years but they would not listen to them him then and YOU do not listen to Noah and his warnings today.

Again, these are common facts about Mesopotamia.

The Bible is FILLED with common facts that are true. You have failed to show anything in the Bible that is not true. You are starting to show that I am right and the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

How do you figure that?

If you make a claim you have to provide evidence for your claim.

You say "ADMIT" like it is some sort of "confession"

correct you were in denial and now you are starting to come around to the truth.

Why would I have to show that no one lived in Mesopotamia?

Because that is what you have to do to show the Bible is not true. You have to show there was no beginning. You have to show that light does not exist. You have to show that the earth does not exist and so on.

 

[Diamond72]

Beauty is largely subjective. Not a subject of science.

You are WRONG on both accounts. Beauty is based in what they call the golden ratio. Everything has to be in balance. Ask any plastic surgeon and they well tell you. Our genetic code our genes have on off switches. The timing has to be perfect and then you will end up with a perfect person.

Just another subject that would take a whole book to properly explain. I can not keep explaining all of this stuff to you. You have a long way to go and a lot to learn. Yet you want to waste your time away on nothing. I am NOT going to do it for you. IF you do not care, then neither do I.

We have a failed school system in this country that wants to spoon-feed people that need to learn how to do more for themselves. Maybe this is a tread all in itself, because you are going to say it is irrelevant. BUT the failure of our education system in this country is anything but irrelevant.

They are constantly trying to hire my son to teach because they can not find anyone competent to go into the inner city to work with the youth. But right now he is just too busy making a living to go in and do that. Although he does volunteer a fair amount of this time to help inner-city youth as we all have paid our dues.

Now that you point this out to me, I will make a point to start to work on teaching people balance.

The Fibonacci numbers are closely related to the Golden Ratio,
also known as the Golden Mean or the Divine Proportion.

1. The Golden Ratio appears in many aspects of nature and art, and is considered aesthetically pleasing to many people. The Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Ratio have been used in art and design to create visually appealing compositions.

 

[BeyondET]

Summer is to hot, winter is to cold, spring or fall would be nice. When I was younger and could travel like that to follow the warm weather I liked winter and I liked to ski. When I was younger we loved to play in the snow.

Traveling around like a albatross staying aloft for weeks, scoping the scenery would be cool. Except for the 10 second power napping, that's got to be annoying lol.

 

[Frank Robert]

Dear non-participant readers: Perhaps against better judgement, I am going to respond to this rambling mess. Because it goes all over the place I will need to break the text in many places to respond to it bit by bit. This will mean that the response chain that will likely be difficult to follow (or write) given the nature of the board software. I wish it were otherwise. (Though looking at the text, I'm still not sure what some of it is about. Perhaps I'll figure it out during the writing process. Geronimo!)

[This was in reference to proof of the superflood of Noah.]

Sorry, that's not how you prove the text is right. That is the ultimate claim -- the Flood happened. You can't prove something using the text that claimed it happened.


Is it? As I recall, it is YOU that has repeatedly claimed that "Science 100% proves the bible". I have claimed that you are wrong, and you would be if even a *single* part of the bible is not proven by science.

In fact since *you* are making the claim ("Science 100% proves the bible") it is *you* that has the burden to show that claim to be true.


And how does a fact of geography "prove the bible"? (Hint: it does not.) That parts of the bible refer to real places does not make even that specific part true and certainly not the whole thing. (Again, that's not how evidence works.) What does the reference to that river mean? It could be reflective of a completely made up story set in a real place all the way to a completely true story. The use of a real place in the text doesn't tell you one way or the other that the story is true or not.



You say "ADMIT" like it is some sort of "confession" that I acknowledge the existence of a real river. Again, this does not make even the stories that mention that river true, and certainly not the whole thing.



Why would I have to show that no one lived in Mesopotamia? I've never made any such claim. This doesn't make any sense at all.

Wicked isn't a scientific concept, why should we use science to measure "wickedness"? (And I am arguing from a scientific point of view as you clearly know.)

Beauty is largely subjective. Not a subject of science. Not sure what this is doing your response.

Don't you ever see those stories on the news about the oldest person dying at 117 or 121 or what ever? You claims are getting weirder and weirder.


Evil is not a scientific measureable, so this claim has nothing to do with science being for or against it.


What six verses?



Failed six times to do what?


Go see the various threads (including this one) where you have made scientific claims about the bible.

Now we're playing word puzzles? I have no idea what you are getting on about here.

[Now we go into the section on "dust".]

This sounds like your erroneous assumption that I need disprove every verse in the bible. I have neither the time, nor inclination to do so, nor am I required to do so in answer to your claim that the bible is 100% proven by science.

This is indeed a fact, but it is not from Sagan, not even in the popular culture. Joni Mitchell was singing about it 10 years before Cosmos, but if you want a real reference try:

Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler, & Hoyle 1957, Rev. Mod. Phys., 29, 547

Where does the bible discuss Big Bang nucleosynthesis or stellar nucleosynthesis?


Wait!? Why do I need to disprove dust? (Everyone knows dust exists.) The existence of dust does not prove (or disprove) anything about the bible.


It's kind sad that you think this is the case. [Other readers: Should I go easy on them and invoke mercy? Nah, let's continue...]

Perhaps you are not aware of these things, since they don't apply to you, but I am not allowed to argue that the bible is false, or fiction, etc. There are limits to what I can do here without being banned.

I would never.

Now you think I am imagining things and using them in our "debates"? [citation needed]


The only thing I am trying to do accomplish is to show you that the bible isn't "100% proven by science".

Oooohhhh. I'm scared now.

I do now? How do you figure that?

Don't know what that is.

NO ONE DISPUTES THAT. (Now it seems that you're back to Mesopotamia, OK fine then.)


Again, no one disputes the existence of floods in the Tigris-Euphrates river system.

Again, these are common facts about Mesopotamia. I learned them when I was 13 in World History. What the point of this?


I have *NEVER* made such a claim about no floods, or no floods in Mesopotamia or other rivers, nor about nobody dying in a flood. Don't distort our conversations. It is unbecoming.


I have not heard of cities, but I have heard of settlements and human habitation below what is not the Black Sea. That the water level was lower during the last glacial maximum is a well known fact. (Or at least it is a fact I have known for a long time.) But, the Black Sea (or the prior Euxine Lake) is not connected to the Euphrates.


Again I have not claimed there were never any floods. What I will state (as others have) is that there is no evidence of a global flood. Ever.


This is not relevant.

My copy of the bible was printed before the recent earthquake in Turkey. Where should I look to find stories about it?

Not relevant. (This is veering toward preaching, which is off topic in this sub-forum.)

More preaching. Don't care.

See the rules.

It's Neil *Tyson*. deGrasse is his middle name. (He also doesn't find your god to be compelling.)

Indeed.

I would not make such a claim.

I have no interested in the broad nature of the bible. Other people care about ancient middle eastern texts, I do not.

False.

You have the patience of a saint.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You have the patience of a saint.

Actually, I don't. It is cathartic to rip apart nonsense.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Correct, glad to see you are learning the lesson.

Truth is truth, period the end. You have failed 100% to disprove the bible and I have 100% proven the bible to be accurate and true.

Correct, you falsify yourself, again and again, you prove yourself wrong.

why are we here talking about the Bible if you have no interest? I enjoy shooting fish in a barrel because it is so easy to show you have failed again and again in your attempt to falsify the Written Word of the living God. Even though I know you are going to come to a saving knowledge of the truth.

[cuts]

yes you have. you really grasp at straws in your failed attempt to disprove the Bible.

prove it, you continue to make claims that you 100% fail to prove. You really do not make any attempt at all to back up what you are saying.

[cut]

The Bible is FILLED with common facts that are true. You have failed to show anything in the Bible that is not true. You are starting to show that I am right and the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

If you make a claim you have to provide evidence for your claim.

correct you were in denial and now you are starting to come around to the truth.

You seem very uniformed about the nature of proof and argument.

In this post, and many earlier, you have claimed "Bible is 100% accurate and true" usually (though not in the quoted material above) claiming it is proven true by science. I have not claimed that it is 100% false (from science or other wise), nor do I have any need to demonstrate 100% falsity to disprove your claim. Let's illustrate this with an example:

Suppose we determined there were 1000 claims in the bible. (There are clearly more, but I don't know what that number would be so this subset allows us to examine the logic.)

Suppose I could demonstrate that 1 (any one of the 1000) was a false.

In that case, no more than 999 of the claims would be true and since the number of true claims (999 or fewer) would be less than the total number of claims (1000) the assertion that "all 1000 were" true would be false and disproved.

This is what we mean by "falsification".

You have claimed "100% proven" so *any* demonstration that *any* claim is false disproves the "100% proven" claim. That's the claim you keep making, and that's why it is relatively easy to knockdown.

Now disproving 1 in 1000 claims doesn't prove that the claim "most claims are correct" is false, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate that all are false, but I haven't been claiming the bible is 100% false.

There are other issues with your replies about mundane claims and restrictions to conflicts with science, but I'll leave that for later.

 

[Diamond72]

you have claimed "Bible is 100% accurate and true"

That is a fact Jack. This is a claim I will continue to make until YOU or ANYONE can offer REAL evidence to prove me wrong. NOT the bogus work of your imagination. REAL EVIDENCE. So put up or admit defeat. Because YOU know what real evidence is. You know what real science and the scientific method is. So you are only fooling yourself because you are not fooling me.

Suppose I could demonstrate that 1 (any one of the 1000) was a false.

You have failed to prove anything false. This proves the Bible is true. Because you can prove nothing to be false. Science has a half-life of 50 years. New information comes along. New information does not change the Bible at all. WE only gain a better understanding of the WORD of God given to us for our benefit, education, and edification.

Maybe our interpretation is wrong. As you prove over and over again that YOUR interpretation is in total error. But the Bible itself remains consistent and true. There could be translation problems, although we do have a KJV only policy.

You have claimed "100% proven" so *any* demonstration that *any* claim is false disproves the "100% proven" claim.

Correct and you have failed to do that. Great big huge book and you can not even prove a little itty bitty tiny part of it to be wrong. The Bible is composed of 66 books by 40 different writers over 1500 years, All in 100% agreement with each other. Day after day, year after year, generation after generation discovers for it's time and it's era the Bible is absolute truth.

You are a living testimony that what I am saying is true, because YOU have FAILED to prove me wrong. Thank you for lending your support to what I am saying and the testimony I am giving.