Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No it is not the same. They claim the entire Bible is fiction. I only claim that common descent from a single ancestor via natural selection and undirected mutation is fiction.If there are any non-believers who deny that the Earth exists, then you deny that human beings exist. It is exactly the same "reasoning".
So if it is not in the scripture, it doesn't exist in real life?
You can't be serious.
No fundamentalist believer on Earth thinks that.
The problem is that certain unbelievers think everything in the Bible is fiction, thus according to them the Earth does not exist.
I am a believer and I certainly think biological evolution (common descent from a single ancestor via natural selection and undirected mutation) is pseudoscience fiction. However I also believe human beings exist. Therefore your words are all bytes and no meaning.
No it is not the same. They claim the entire Bible is fiction. I only claim that common descent form a single ancestor via natural selection and undirected mutation is fiction.
Several fundamentalist atheists on this very website have said as much. I guess they were just being dishonest. Typical.Nobody believes that everything mentioned in the Bible isn't real.
So if meteorites are in the Bible that doesn't make them real?People claim that being in the Bible is not sufficient to believe that something is real.
That's because the people who argue against me have no logical argument. Thus they seem like straw men against my titanium words.You are, without a doubt, the King of the Straw Men. Good job.
I can't stand all of you Newtonians and your theory of gravity. We've never seen gravity happen. Newtonians and gravitationans have never proven gravity.
When people fall, it is because God is pushing them down.
Gravity is the most dangerous and dumbest religion on this planet.
...
The planets do not spin because of gravity, but because God does it. Black Holes are not "gravity" but gaps to heaven that God does not want you to enter. This is the most out dated theory and lie for the last 400 years.
This dangerous theory can now have an alternative.
We are trying to take out the Theory of Gravity and introduce a new way of learning why things fall.
Intelligent Falling leads those from the satanic path of gravity and leads them to the path of God and Intelligent Falling.
...
Pretty profound I have to say.
The simple truth that is not well publicised (guess why) is that the graviton is not in the Standard Model of elementary particles. In short, science does not have a particle to transmit it, and can not provide a mechanism for it.
That is big fail. Robert Hooke and Sir Isaac Newton rabbited on about gravity in the 1660s and here 340 plus years later science still can't explain it.
Very simply I would suggest getting down to the nearest church that is faithful to God and get to know him because you are wasting your time with science.
Pray the prayer, join up, go weekly, pay 10% in tithes, and with your treasure safely stored up in Heaven you can be sure one day you will go there and join it. QED (sorted!)
So gravity isn't in the bible but the Standard Model is elementary particles is alright with you?
Well I was really letting each put forth it's best argument, so took the Bible for the Christian side and the Standard Model for the Physicists side.
Of course I ignored all the benefits science has brought such as this very PC I am using now contains not just a miracle of solid state physics but a whole lot of other amazing things that would be worth a thread of their own, and religion has brought, well, .
But welcome to CF
CF as you little doubt know, has a few serious threads here in the sciences, some entertainment, a few topics people take seriously out in the religious forums, and lots and lots of rhetoric and poes.
The point of a good rhetorical argument is not whether it is true but whether it sounds convincing. If Christian evangelists stuck to the truth they would have nothing to say. I have pointed out errors to Christian evangelists before and they just carry on saying them for the simple reason that the entire argument is built out of half-truths at best.
The most useful tool in rhetoric is the simple lie, you notice I said:
'The simple truth that is not well publicised (guess why)'
actually scientists are very concerned to get gravity into a unified field theory and are achieving a fair amount toward doing just that at the moment, and I squeezed in a sort of allusion to the atheist science conspiracy with the (guess why)
Evangelists will lie to you and we all need practice in dealing with it.
Yes, Poe'd, rhetoric'd and satired.Oh ok, so I was poe'd?
Several fundamentalist atheists on this very website have said as much. I guess they were just being dishonest. Typical.
Something being in the Bible doesn't make something real. What makes something real is the fact that the thing itself exists. The Bible speaks of things that are real and things that are not. That's what I was saying.So if meteorites are in the Bible that doesn't make them real?
Uh, no, it's because you constantly argue against things nobody has ever said.That's because the people who argue against me have no logical argument. Thus they seem like straw men against my titanium words.
I specifically recall at least two posters who said the Bible is not historical and contains not one scientific fact.No one has ever said that.
I disagree. History is real.Something being in the Bible doesn't make something real.
So extinct animals aren't real because they no longer exist?What makes something real is the fact that the thing itself exists.
I disagree.The Bible speaks of things that are real and things that are not.
I understand.That's what I was saying.
Such as?Uh, no, it's because you constantly argue against things nobody has ever said.
I specifically recall at least two posters who said the Bible is not historical and contains not one scientific fact.
History is real. Not all historical accounts are accurate, though. And many parts of the Bible are not intended to be historical accounts in the first place.I disagree. History is real.
Well, perhaps I was not careful enough with my wording, but you should have been able to understand what I was trying to say. A thing is real because it exists or once existed. We can only refer to extinct animals as things that were real in the past though, seeing as how they no longer exist.So extinct animals aren't real because they no longer exist?
I know.I disagree.
I doubt that.I understand.
Such as you saying that people have said that everything in the Bible must be false just because its in the Bible. That's a straw man, because nobody here has ever expressed such an opinion.Such as?
Even if I took hours to dig it up and gave you the link you still wouldn't believe me.Care to provide a link? Because I don't believe you.
At least 90% or more are accurate. The other 10%, what may be called Darwinist mythohistory, is grossly inaccurate: http://www.amazon.com/History-Wrong-Erich-Von-Daniken/dp/1601630867History is real. Not all historical accounts are accurate, though.
I disagree.And many parts of the Bible are not intended to be historical accounts in the first place.
The Bible is just such a history.Well, perhaps I was not careful enough with my wording, but you should have been able to understand what I was trying to say. A thing is real because it exists or once existed. We can only refer to extinct animals as things that were real in the past though, seeing as how they no longer exist.
In fact they did.Such as you saying that people have said that everything in the Bible must be false just because its in the Bible. That's a straw man, because nobody here has ever expressed such an opinion.
Even if I took hours to dig it up and gave you the link you still wouldn't believe me.
Allow me to give you historical examples that summarize the thinking of certain atheists on this very website.
[snip irrelevant quotes]
90% of history is accurate? What on Earth does that even mean, and why should I believe you when you can't even tell the difference between history and myth? (BTW, Erich von Daniken is a crank).At least 90% or more are accurate. The other 10%, what may be called Darwinist mythohistory, is grossly inaccurate: Amazon.com: History Is Wrong (9781601630865): Erich Von Daniken, Nicholas Quaintmere: Books
I know.I disagree.
How is that a response to what I said?The Bible is just such a history.Spacewyrm said:Well, perhaps I was not careful enough with my wording, but you should have been able to understand what I was trying to say. A thing is real because it exists or once existed. We can only refer to extinct animals as things that were real in the past though, seeing as how they no longer exist.
How convienient for you.In fact they did.
However the comment was removed by staff: http://www.christianforums.com/t7416574-7/#post53668184
I gave you the link and you ignored it obviously.If you can't provide a link, I'm just going to assume you're making things up.
I gave you the link and you ignored it obviously.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?