Noah's Ark and the Cheetah

[AV1611VET]

I don't think too many of the creationists would be happy with the results of testing such hypotheses.

Go for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go for it.

The results would be rather obvious. The early books of the Bible would show all of the hallmarks of what one would expect if they were cobbled together from multiple sources, and reality would tell us that much of it is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Different sects and religions have "closed" the Bible at different times. The Jews closed theirs first, most Christians closed theirs in the second century CE, the Muslims closed theirs later, and Mormons later yet.

Then reopen it.

Instead of cursing the darkness, light a candle.

What's stopping you?

Or do you (conveniently) cater to different sects now?

I don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

The results would be rather obvious.

Oh ... so now no testing is necessary?

All of a sudden you've changed your mind since I called your bluff?

And is it just me, or does anyone else here notice that a conclusion is being drawn before the test?

Isn't that called confirmation bias or something?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then reopen it.

Instead of cursing the darkness, light a candle.

What's stopping you?

Or do you (conveniently) cater to different sects now?

I don't.

Why would I want to reopen the Bible? I am in no position to do so. I no longer believe in it, this is a problem that your side needs to address.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh ... so now no testing is necessary?

All of a sudden you've changed your mind since I called your bluff?

And is it just me, or does anyone else here notice that a conclusion is being drawn before the test?

Isn't that called confirmation bias or something?

Much of the testing has been done. Your side lost.

And there was no bluff, I merely said that it would be interesting to frame the problem in such a manner. That is why it would be rather a rather useless exercise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would I want to reopen the Bible?

Then don't bring up different sects closing It, like it's some kind of point you're making.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then don't bring up different sects closing It, like it's some kind of point you're making.

Now you are being hypocritical. You asked a question and I answered it. Once again, your Bible is the one with the problem here.

 

[AV1611VET]

And there was no bluff, I merely said that it would be interesting to frame the problem in such a manner. That is why it would be rather a rather useless exercise.

Oh, so now we're gonna play Arab phone, are we?

You're gonna Arab phone "testing" to "framing and exercise"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now you are being hypocritical. You asked a question and I answered it. Once again, your Bible is the one with the problem here.

I'm not gonna go back and reopen a point you made, just because you're watering it down now.

You're not back-peddling out; you're back-paddling out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not gonna go back and reopen a point you made, just because you're watering it down now.

You're not back-peddling out; you're back-paddling out.

I pointed out your errors from the start. Any "arab phoning" is again your fault and not mine. You rudely respond and then don't like the answers when you are slapped down. What exactly do you want answered?

 

[AV1611VET]

What exactly do you want answered?

I said I wasn't gonna go back and dig it up.

But since I'm a nice guy:

1. Do you still support testing the Bible against other sects?
2. Why don't rewriters add a 67th, 68th, and 69th book to include Mohammad, Darwin and Linnaeus?

 

[Loudmouth]

I said I wasn't gonna go back and dig it up.

But since I'm a nice guy:

1. Do you still support testing the Bible against other sects?
2. Why don't rewriters add a 67th, 68th, and 69th book to include Mohammad, Darwin and Linnaeus?

Do you still pretend that other religions do not make the same claims about their religious texts that you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you still pretend that other religions do not make the same claims about their religious texts that you do.

Hi!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said I wasn't gonna go back and dig it up.

But since I'm a nice guy:

1. Do you still support testing the Bible against other sects?
2. Why don't rewriters add a 67th, 68th, and 69th book to include Mohammad, Darwin and Linnaeus?

Now you have shown that if anyone "arab phoned" it was you.

I was not responding to you when I said that it would be interesting to test the Bible using the scientific method. You did not seem to understand that post and rudely responded. More rudeness followed from you. Again, cut the hypocrisy when you are to blame for any misunderstandings here.

Do you know how one would test the Bible using the scientific method? One way would be to ask what would we see if it was cobbled together from other faiths and see if it matches that. By the way, it does. That would be evidence that is was cobbled together. Please note with a scientific hypothesis there is never "proof". Second we could look at the Bible and check to see if it was accurate. It would, and has failed those tests. I never proposed "testing the Bible against other sects". I proposed using different sects to test the Bible. Your question was poorly formed.

And I already answered question number 2. Go back read and reread until you understand or at the very least try to ask intelligent questions about the answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go back read and reread until you understand or at the very least try to ask intelligent questions about the answer.

Until I do, have a good day, will you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Until I do, have a good day, will you?

I always have a good day. I was merely trying to help you.

 

[justlookinla]

Do you really think that's an accusation worth pursuing?

If someone thinks I presented God as a lunatic, I'd be interested in seeing their reason for the accusation.

 

[justlookinla]

Please, don't be silly. The fact that I can show that your beliefs are not only errant,but comically wrong only disproves your version of "God". It does not disprove the Christian God at all and is hardly "antichrist".

Your very basis of discussion on the forum is antichrist. You can't show me anything concerning the bible and spiritual truths without it being perverted by that spirit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your very basis of discussion on the forum is antichrist. You can't show me anything concerning the bible and spiritual truths without it being perverted by that spirit.

Wrong. My concern is how certain Christians, and far from most, oppose reality and attempt to harm others through public schools and other venues. And of course I can help you with understanding the Bible. Your main flaw is in assuming that it is literally true. That will almost always lead to false spirituality.