Evolution False? Absolute proof inside.

[PsychoSarah]

Oh Really? How deceptive? Where can we find that?

Leviticus 11:6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.

It is very directly stated

 

[Kylie]

Can you name a higher level of truth than the Bible?

Reality.

You want to show me a case of reality being wrong?

 

[TasManOfGod]

Leviticus 11:6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.

It is very directly stated

To God eating your own poo is just as unclean as regurgitating it

 

[Subduction Zone]

To God eating your own poo is just as unclean as regurgitating it

Cud is not poo.

Cows eat their own cud, so do goats and lambs.

I can see that you have no farming experience either.

Sarah this point may need to be copied, or you could make it to Tas yourself.

ETA: And regurgitating food must be "clean" since cows, goats, and sheep are "clean" beasties.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Reality.

You want to show me a case of reality being wrong?

There is no higher reality than God -the creator of all things

 

[PsychoSarah]

To God eating your own poo is just as unclean as regurgitating it

-_- cud is not poo, ever. And when you go into the deeper context, of how it is listing out animals which do and don't chew their cud, it is pretty obvious it isn't talking about poo in any sense. And the clean animals are those which DO chew their cud AND have hooves

 

[TasManOfGod]

-_- cud is not poo, ever. And when you go into the deeper context, of how it is listing out animals which do and don't chew their cud, it is pretty obvious it isn't talking about poo in any sense. And the clean animals are those which DO chew their cud AND have hooves

OK I see the technicality and that I came to the wrong conclusion but isn't it about how God wants the Children of Israel to eat "safe" foods and for simplicity sake was including hares as cud chewers (even tho there was a slight difference in the operation)

 

[PsychoSarah]

OK I see the technicality and that I came to the wrong conclusion but isn't it about how God wants the Children of Israel to eat "safe" foods and for simplicity sake was including hares as cud chewers (even tho there was a slight difference in the operation)

No, it could have just not mentioned rabbits, or just listed them as unclean.

 

[TasManOfGod]

No, it could have just not mentioned rabbits, or just listed them as unclean.

Maybe in God's eyes there is no difference in re-eating regurgitated food or excreta.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, cows, sheep, and goats, all have similar multiple stomach systems. They all chew their cud. They are all considered "clean" animals.

 

[Kylie]

There is no higher reality than God -the creator of all things

No, that's an assumption. You have no evidence to back it up, just an old book.

Again, I ask you if you want to show me a case of reality being wrong.

 

[Aureus]

The only one even claiming the existence of infallibility is you...It's not our fault that you can't comprehend that having an infallible source is not enough (unless you are that infallible source, of course). For you to be passing infallible information on, you have to actually interpret/understand/communicate that information infallibly as well.

If that jumbled conglomerate of letters of the alphabet is assuming that I said I was infallible could you please refer me to my quote. Thank you

He is pointing out that you are claiming you have an infallible source. You have not given any evidence at all that your source is infallible. In fact whenever your source is investigated it is found to be full of errors. By trying to claim your source is infallible you pretend that you can be infallible.

You have not shown that your source is infallible.

Hey You forgot to use you sock
Just sayin

46AND2 posted something. Tas posted in response. Subduction posted in response to Tas, using "He" to refer to 46AND2.

Tas than accused Subduction of engaging in sock puppeting because um.. what?

Tas, you're a heel and need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible would be a much better book if it had a method to correct the errors of the Bible.

What do you think these "newer versions" are? second verse, same as the first?

Even Lymphas' gender in Colossians 4:15 is changed.

But you don't see that, do you?

All you see is a book daring to disagree with sacred science.

 

[Kylie]

What do you think these "newer versions" are? second verse, same as the first?

Even Lymphas' gender in Colossians 4:15 is changed.

But you don't see that, do you?

All you see is a book daring to disagree with sacred science.

I see a book disagreeing with reality.

Which is more accurate, AV? The Bible or reality?

 

[biggles53]

46AND2 posted something. Tas posted in response. Subduction posted in response to Tas, using "He" to refer to 46AND2.

Tas than accused Subduction of engaging in sock puppeting because um.. what?

Tas, you're a heel and need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

He's a Tasmanian......being unable to understand things is kinda required in that state....

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you think these "newer versions" are? second verse, same as the first?

Even Lymphas' gender in Colossians 4:15 is changed.

But you don't see that, do you?

All you see is a book daring to disagree with sacred science.

No, those are minor changes in the Bible. And there is no such thing as "sacred science". If science is wrong it is wrong and it does not matter if it is "sacred" or not.

Remember if the Bible was the infallible word of God it would not have over 600 self contradictions in it. It would not have stories of how you could cure leprosy with the blood of a dove, it would not have tales of priests that are able to give a concoction to a married woman and if she had cheated on her husband she would have a priest induced abortion where she would be fine if she hadn't "gone astray".

 

[Kylie]

Then why do we see more modern aquatic life form (such as icthyosaurs) in higher layers than more primitive land animals (such as dimetrodon)? If you are correct, wouldn't the icthyosaurs be in lower layers instead of the layers higher than dimetrodon?

TasManOfGod, hope you don't forget to address this!

 

[DogmaHunter]

I see a book disagreeing with reality.

Which is more accurate, AV? The Bible or reality?

I don't think av needs to answer that for you to know the answer. His signature says it all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is more accurate, AV? The Bible or reality?

Could we get back to my question, please?

It was said the Bible would be much better if It was self-correcting.

Well, just like people claims scientists are always improving, other people claim that the Bible is improving.

So why would anyone harp on the Bible not being improved?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, those are minor changes in the Bible.

Excuse me, chief.

Those are [allegedly] corrections in the word of God.

What do you call those when applied to your holy science? "improvements"?

So now, after having said this doosey:

Again, this is where you are wrong.

When science finds an error they try to correct it. That is a good thing.

When we find errors in the Bible some Christians try to cover them up or make flaky excuses for them. This is bad thing.

The Bible would be a much better book if it had a method to correct the errors of the Bible.

... you're going to try to trivialize it, now that I've caught you on a technicality?

I gave you an example of someone's gender being changed, and you call that "minor"?