My Ten Tribes Challenge

[Hans Blaster]

Scientists are morons when it comes to the Bible -- absolute clueless morons.

I have zero use for that book, unless there is a bug to smash.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have zero use for that book, unless there is a bug to smash.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[sjastro]

Scientists are morons when it comes to the Bible -- absolute clueless morons.

As the great Roman philosopher Simplicus Flimflammus once said "It takes one to know one".

 

[AV1611VET]

As the great Roman philosopher Simplicus Flimflammus once said "It takes one to know one".

Yup -- eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

Leestways eyes midit.

 

[Kylie]

Scientists are morons when it comes to the Bible -- absolute clueless morons.

But they ARE experts when it comes to the particular area of reality that they are experts on.

 

[AV1611VET]

But they ARE experts when it comes to the particular area of reality that they are experts on.

Neat.

Johnny can do handstands and adjust his center of gravity to maintain inverted positions for thirty seconds or more.

But can he spell?

 

[sjastro]

Neat.

Johnny can do handstands and adjust his center of gravity to maintain inverted positions for thirty seconds or more.

But can he spell?

Equally relevant we can thank Mark Siddall for his research into hippopotamus butt leaches.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Lets disregard the fact that your answer is false, which shows a woeful lack of research.

No, let's not ignore it. I'd like you to rebut it. If you can't, you owe me an apology.

When where and what all documented forensically, several repeats.

Asserted without evidence. Nice start.

Lets just compare with evidence for abiogenesis. You do not know whether it happened at all ,even once let alone several times, , where even which planet it happened on , when (to the nearest billion years), or even what actually happened, when if you say what happened happend, that your really dont seem to know what happened.. Nobody saw it. There is no evidence of the first cell. There is nothing to analyse. There is not even a model for the first self evolving self replicating cell (aka life) the precursors for that step (aka no life). ie not even a valid hypothesis.

So evidence stakes,

I win hands down. You have nothing at all! Even high priest Dawkins of the faith says he has no idea...listen to your priest, you are off message!

You don't meet your own standards for others, but you win hands down? Lol, you're funny.

 

[Kylie]

Neat.

Johnny can do handstands and adjust his center of gravity to maintain inverted positions for thirty seconds or more.

But can he spell?

What in the world are you going on about?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then do it, if you can.

I've given challenge after challenge and encouraged people to use that science knowledge of theirs to impress the living halo out of me.

But instead, they prefer to mock, ridicule, make fun, and scratch themselves to death trying to figure them out.

So be it.

You've given a challenge that doesn't make sense. The Lost Tribes is your wheelhouse: it's a Biblical claim.

Why should science (since you still seem to just love to tar every thing with the same brush) try and validate something you believe in?

 

[AV1611VET]

You've given a challenge that doesn't make sense. The Lost Tribes is your wheelhouse: it's a Biblical claim.

Why should science (since you still seem to just love to tar every thing with the same brush) try and validate something you believe in?

Speaking of tarring, the Bible's claims are a real pain in science's side, aren't they?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Speaking of tarring, the Bible's claims are a real pain in science's side, aren't they?

Why should science (since you still seem to just love to tar every thing with the same brush) try and validate something you believe in?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why should science (since you still seem to just love to tar every thing with the same brush) try and validate something you believe in?

Because they have a rich history of sticking their noses in areas they don't belong, and making judgement calls that are lies, untruths, and erroneous speculations.

That's why you'll find their advice to us, stuff like:

1. pray to a milk carton, it's just as effective
2. give up on the idea of a global Flood
3. put stock in the Scopes Monkey Trial
4. keep the Ten Commandments off of public property
5. shack up, if you want to, just be aware of STDs
6. hug your trees
7. smoke dope, and drink alcohol, as long as it's in moderation
8. other junk they can use to dilute the Bible

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because they have a rich history of sticking their noses in areas they don't belong, and making judgement calls that are lies, untruths, and erroneous speculations.

That's why you'll find their advice to us, stuff like:

1. pray to a milk carton, it's just as effective
2. give up on the idea of a global Flood
3. put stock in the Scopes Monkey Trial
4. keep the Ten Commandments off of public property
5. shack up, if you want to, just be aware of STDs
6. hug your trees
7. smoke dope, and drink alcohol, as long as it's in moderation
8. other junk they can use to dilute the Bible

But why? You're the one who claims that The Ten Lost Tribes were a real group. It's on you, not science, to show they existed.

I also do love seeing the old American "Scientists want to destroy the Bible!" BS. It's so funny.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This a list of things "science" says according to this poster.

Because they have a rich history of sticking their noses in areas they don't belong, and making judgement calls that are lies, untruths, and erroneous speculations.

That's why you'll find their advice to us, stuff like:

(The list renumbered itself when I cut it for individual responses.)

1. pray to a milk carton, it's just as effective

Science makes no claims about what anyone should pray to. Pray to a milk carton or not, whatever floats your boat.

1. give up on the idea of a global Flood

Yes, geology demonstrates clearly that the global flood didn't happen. (Unlike most of these, this one actually relates to science.)

1. put stock in the Scopes Monkey Trial

The Scopes trial was about a legal challenge to a new law. Scopes was *recruited* by the ACLU to violate the "don't teach evolution" law and go on trial. He lost as they knew he would. "science" didn't do anything here.

1. keep the Ten Commandments off of public property

This is a legal issue and not science related at all.

1. shack up, if you want to, just be aware of STDs

Science can tell you about the transmission (and cure) of such diseases, but it leaves the "moral" questions to others. It certainly doesn't command anyone to engage in a sexual relationship.

1. hug your trees

Hugging trees isn't particularly comfortable and they don't hug back. (If you want a hug, you're out of luck.) Science doesn't instruct you to wrap your arms around a large plant.

1. smoke dope, and drink alcohol, as long as it's in moderation

Again, science can study the effects of these drugs on people, but the "moral" aspects are not in its purview.

1. other junk they can use to dilute the Bible

Science isn't an effort to "dilute" the bible. To be scientific, I'm not sure how one dilutes a solid. (Unless your bible is a fluid of some sort.)

In summary, please stop blaming all of the things you don't like to "science" especially when most of these things aren't related to actions of science. It makes you look the fool.

 

[AV1611VET]

In summary, please stop blaming all of the things you don't like to "science" especially when most of these things aren't related to actions of science. It makes you look the fool.

Thanks for the advice, but science certainly comes to the rescue of someone having cognitive dissonance against clear-cut issues in the Bible.

Do you think, for example, that Roe v Wade would have gotten passed, had not science plutoed "child in the womb" to "fetus"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for the advice, but science certainly comes to the rescue of someone having cognitive dissonance against clear-cut issues in the Bible.

Do you think, for example, that Roe v Wade would have gotten passed, had not science plutoed "child in the womb" to "fetus"?

AV, I've told you before that fetus has been used to refer to a child in the womb for centuries before Roe vs Wade was even a sparkle of an idea.

You need to stop with these stupid ideas.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, I've told you before that fetus has been used to refer to a child in the womb for centuries before Roe vs Wade was even a sparkle of an idea.

So!?

Of course it would.

I'll ask again:

Would Roe v Wade have gotten passed, had not science [centuries ago] plutoed "child in the womb" to "fetus"?

 

[Jonaitis]

Validate the ten lost tribes of Israel with science -- all ten of them.

How about you validate it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So!?

Of course it would.

I'll ask again:

Would Roe v Wade have gotten passed, had not science [centuries ago] plutoed "child in the womb" to "fetus"?

Fetus came before child in the womb, especially since we know you're using the KJV of the Bible.

And back when it was the KJV, and long before it too, there weren't scientists, just philosophers.