An atheists world

[TheBeardedDude]

There are no contradictions in the Bible. But if you mean why do people contradict each other it is because as Paul says we have not been perfected yet: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." 1 coe 13 12

The Bible is not science it is religion. You need the Holy Spirit of God to be your Teacher to guide and lead you into all truth. You already know your not going to get any help from man. People contradict themselves so you can not trust in people. You have to put your faith in and trust in God.

I so look forward to attending the university when I get to Heaven. The very "worst" of schools in Heaven will be far, far, far better then the very best of schools here on Earth. Because everything we learn will be the truth. There will be no lies or errors mixed in with the truth. Also I am sure the campus of the University in Heaven will be far far better then the campus of any school here on Earth.

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies

 

[bhsmte]

ok so back the real questions I have asked of you guys,

why is it that not one evolutionist will debate any one of the high profile creationists out there?

secondly, how is it the nothing exploded? In the Big bang?

What fueled it?

nothing can't fuel nothing correct?

Also explain how macro evolution is possible?

also how is it that That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys.

Give me a break!

Even the darling of most christians (William Lane Craig) stays away from getting into the; creation/evolution debate, because he knows it is a no win situation. He also admits that anyone who claims the universe is not billions of years old, is ignorant, because he knows the evidence is overwhelming.

Have you ever seen the youtube video with Richard Dawkins interviewing the women creationist (can't recall her name)? It was good for a few laughs and that is about it.

 

[bhsmte]

There are no contradictions in the Bible. But if you mean why do people contradict each other it is because as Paul says we have not been perfected yet: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." 1 coe 13 12

The Bible is not science it is religion. You need the Holy Spirit of God to be your Teacher to guide and lead you into all truth. You already know your not going to get any help from man. People contradict themselves so you can not trust in people. You have to put your faith in and trust in God.

I so look forward to attending the university when I get to Heaven. The very "worst" of schools in Heaven will be far, far, far better then the very best of schools here on Earth. Because everything we learn will be the truth. There will be no lies or errors mixed in with the truth. Also I am sure the campus of the University in Heaven will be far far better then the campus of any school here on Earth.

The bible is indeed a book of "theology" it is not a book of credible "history".

 

[TheBeardedDude]

"The Bible is not science it is religion."

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. I'll accept that the bible is religion and contains no science. Why should be expected to contain science when it was written a 1,000 years before the advent of modern science?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies

I'm a visual learner

That would be a good visual representation to show every new creationist poster who regurgitates the same old bunk about the bible being totally accurate.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

That would be a good visual representation to show every new creationist poster who regurgitates the same old bunk about the bible being totally accurate.

We can, for the purposes of this debate now, just separate out the scientific inaccuracies and inconsistency.

here is just genesis
SAB, Science and History in Genesis

 

[createdtoworship]

Give me a break!

Even the darling of most christians (William Lane Craig) stays away from getting into the; creation/evolution debate, because he knows it is a no win situation. He also admits that anyone who claims the universe is not billions of years old, is ignorant, because he knows the evidence is overwhelming.

Have you ever seen the youtube video with Richard Dawkins interviewing the women creationist (can't recall her name)? It was good for a few laughs and that is about it.

actually I have heard of at least two to three creationists that are constantly being turned down in debate. Because evolutionists don't want to debate evolution from a rock in the public arena, they would much rather go to a forum that is unrelated to themselves and debate christians on the Bible to justify their own lack? Correct?

 

[createdtoworship]

The offer has been extended for those debates to happen, Richard Dawkins for instance has extended the offer out there before.

The "Big Bang" does not mean an explosion. It means a rapid expansion of the universe. See, Lawrence Krauss for answers on that if you want to know.

There is no fuel, as it isn't an explosion.

Macro evolution is just evolution. No difference. If you mean speciation, then you have: Natural Selection, sexual selection, geographic separation, spatial separation, climate change, mass extinction, etc

"also how is it that That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys."

This is a strawman that displays an ignorance of what evolution is. Evolutionary change does not happen in a single generation or to a single individual.

like I said already it has to do with the subject of the debate. Evolutionists don't want to debate their own religious views on it in public. They lose money and don't save face when they lose. Do you have any debates where dawkins is specifically debating evolution? I would be suprised and shocked. They like to debate things they feel they have the upper hand on....i.e. miracles, young earth, other things. But not their very own views like evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

You also don't know what a "non sequitor" means. The best you could say is that the comment you refer to is a strawman, but I was asking for clarification as to how the bible has any physics in it (by asking for justification in the bible for your 26 dimension claim)

non sequitor? doesn't follow. easy. I use that myself. So are you going to answer my challenge or like countless others I debate.....shrink off?

 

[lasthero]

Because evolutionists don't want to debate evolution from a rock

How could anyone debate 'evolution from a rock' when no one has ever claimed that people evolved from rocks? That's a strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

actually I have heard of at least two to three creationists that are constantly being turned down in debate. Because evolutionists don't want to debate evolution from a rock in the public arena, they would much rather go to a forum that is unrelated to themselves and debate christians on the Bible to justify their own lack? Correct?

That is because many creationists do not debate honestly. They openly lie and can get away with it because of the debate format. Look at Kent Hovinds "debates". He would spout a series of errors and lies so fast that the opposition could not keep up with him. It only takes a couple of seconds to tell a lie and can take minutes to debunk it. Unless there is a method for punishing liars in the middle of a debate there is no point in debate with creationists.

Scientists on the other hand get in trouble if they are caught lying. If you publish a paper that you know is false you could easily have ended your career right there as a scientist. And since many scientists are skeptical and tend to check the work of others the odds are that you will be found out.

That same criterion does not apply to creationists.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

like I said already it has to do with the subject of the debate. Evolutionists don't want to debate their own religious views on it in public. They lose money and don't save face when they lose. Do you have any debates where dawkins is specifically debating evolution? I would be suprised and shocked. They like to debate things they feel they have the upper hand on....i.e. miracles, young earth, other things. But not their very own views like evolution.

You want me to demonstrate the progression of the evolution of tetrapods? This is what you want?

 

[HitchSlap]

actually I have heard of at least two to three creationists that are constantly being turned down in debate. Because evolutionists don't want to debate evolution from a rock in the public arena, they would much rather go to a forum that is unrelated to themselves and debate christians on the Bible to justify their own lack? Correct?

Incorrect. Ken Hamm(bone) just refused to debate AronRa last month. He cowered and slunk away with his vestigial tail between his biped legs.

 

[HitchSlap]

You want me to demonstrate the progression of the evolution of tetrapods? This is what you want?

I also find it amusing that when I ask cdesign proponentsists if they think Dr. Shubin used ToE to predict where he would find T. roaseae, or if he was just lucky, as they never tend to respond.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolutionists don't want to debate their own religious views on it in public.

Evolution is not a religious view, no matter how hard you try to smear other people with the term religion. Why do you use religion in such a way?

Also, evolutionists do present evidence and theories for public debate. They are called scientific conferences. Creationists run away from these events because they contain science, and their intellectual bankruptcy will be made plain to everyone. The last thing creationists want to do is debate science where science is actually debated.

 

[HitchSlap]

Evolution is not a religious view, no matter how hard you try to smear other people with the term religion. Why do you use religion in such a way?

Also, evolutionists do present evidence and theories for public debate. They are called scientific conferences. Creationists run away from these events because they contain science, and their intellectual bankruptcy will be made plain to everyone. The last thing creationists want to do is debate science where science is actually debated.

Creationism is like a virus, needing to live off it's host but dare do nothing that would compromise or endanger their existence. They flourish in the shadows, stirring emotion among their sycophant adherents, never really intending to put their fatuous beliefs into the public arena, because they know as soon as they do, the gigs up! No, they're more like cockroaches, scurrying about in a dark room, filling dark minds with ignorance, who scatter when then the light switch of truth and reality is flicked.

 

[And-U-Say]

Evolutionists don't want to debate their own religious views on it in public.

You do realize that using "religious" as a negative description works against you more than it does for you? And evolution is not a religion, so things are looking very poor for you.

They lose money and don't save face when they lose.

I think most would consider it a waste of time. Like arguing with a two year old.

Do you have any debates where dawkins is specifically debating evolution? I would be suprised and shocked. They like to debate things they feel they have the upper hand on....i.e. miracles, young earth, other things. But not their very own views like evolution.

I don't think Dawkins would ever be afraid of defending his views on Evolution. It is really so well supported that a high school student could well defend it. Again, I think it is a waste of time issue. Also, honest people have a difficult time dealing with liars. It is hard not to just go over and smack them in the head.

 

[createdtoworship]

Incorrect. Ken Hamm(bone) just refused to debate AronRa last month. He cowered and slunk away with his vestigial tail between his biped legs.

ken ham goes and sells books on a speaking schedule, probably a conflict

 

[HitchSlap]

ken ham goes and sells books on a speaking schedule, probably a conflict

Nope. He chickened out, pure and simple.

"Now, we’re not saying no to a debate with the Houston Atheists Association. In fact we want one of our PhD scientists on staff to debate a PhD scientist chosen by the Houston Atheists Association. This would encourage a more fruitful exchange on the merits of creation vs. evolution, the age of the universe, etc."
-K. Hamm

 

[Skaloop]

ken ham goes and sells books on a speaking schedule, probably a conflict

No, since Ken agreed to do it initially with certain conditions (having a PhD in the debate), and then once those conditions were met (by PZ Myers joining in) he bailed.