Noah's Ark and the Cheetah

[justlookinla]

Wrong. My concern is how certain Christians, and far from most, oppose reality and attempt to harm others through public schools and other venues.

When you take a stand against killing innocent unborn babies you may have a right to talk about harm.

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.[/QUOTE

It's impossible for you, yielding to the antichrist spirit, to teach biblical truths consistently. You're deceived by this spirit and are apparently unaware of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you take a stand against killing innocent unborn babies you may have a right to talk about harm.

We have gone over this more than once. If you use improper terms it makes it almost impossible to debate a subject. I have never advocated killing innocent babies, but I can show where the Bible advocates for that practice.

 

[justlookinla]

We have gone over this more than once. If you use improper terms it makes it almost impossible to debate a subject. I have never advocated killing innocent babies, but I can show where the Bible advocates for that practice.

First, you still haven't condemned the practice. Secondly, you don't have a clue on how to interpret the bible...antichrist spirit and all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, you still haven't condemned the practice. Secondly, you don't have a clue on how to interpret the bible...antichrist spirit and all.

I have condemned killing babies. We have not discussed other matters because you insist on using loaded terminology.

And of course I can interpret the Bible better than you can. I don't have your multiple handicaps.

 

[justlookinla]

I have condemned killing babies. We have not discussed other matters because you insist on using loaded terminology.

Innocent unborn babies?

And of course I can interpret the Bible better than you can. I don't have your multiple handicaps.

It's impossible for the antichrist spirit to accurately interpret the bible. Your interpretation would be a perversion of the Word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Innocent unborn babies?

No such animal. Try again.

It's impossible for the antichrist spirit to accurately interpret the bible. Your interpretation would be a perversion of the Word.

That obviously does not apply to me since I am not "antichirst".

 

[justlookinla]

No such animal. Try again.

In the world of the Godless.

That obviously does not apply to me since I am not "antichirst".

Influenced by the antichrist spirit....get it right. Now, do you deny the Father and the Son?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Lewis's Trilemma

 

[Loudmouth]

Influenced by the antichrist spirit....get it right. Now, do you deny the Father and the Son?

What antichrist spirit? Evidence please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the world of the Godless.

Wrong again. In the real world, by definition a baby is not a baby until after it is born. I did not come up with this definition. Once again if you use loaded



Influenced by the antichrist spirit....get it right. Now, do you deny the Father and the Son?[/QUOTE]

No, let's get rid of this first false claim of yours. If you want to make such a claim you need to show massive evidence that supports it. You are just using guesses and suppositions again.

 

[SkyWriting]

And that means what?..... Absolutely nothing?

Sure, you can believe that. You know NOTHING about genetics, a field currently approaching the infant stage.

 

[justlookinla]

What antichrist spirit? Evidence please.

Per scripture.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong again. In the real world, by definition a baby is not a baby until after it is born. I did not come up with this definition. Once again if you use loaded

In the real world, a baby is as much a baby 10 minutes before it's born as it is 10 minutes after it's born.

Influenced by the antichrist spirit....get it right. Now, do you deny the Father and the Son?

You didn't answer.

No, let's get rid of this first false claim of yours. If you want to make such a claim you need to show massive evidence that supports it.
You are just using guesses and suppositions again.

What first false claim?

 

[SkyWriting]

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,..

Biblical scholars agree! Glad we got that out of the way.

 

[SkyWriting]

Wrong again. In the real world, by definition a baby is not a baby until after it is born. I did not come up with this definition. Once again if you use loaded

The ultrasound can be used during pregnancy to show images of the baby, amniotic sac, placenta, and ovaries. Major anatomical abnormalities or birth defects are visible on an ultrasound.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/ultrasound

Definition
By Mayo Clinic Staff

• A fetal ultrasound, or sonogram, is an imaging technique that uses high-frequency sound waves to produce images of a baby in the uterus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical scholars agree! Glad we got that out of the way.

Which implies of course that it is simply a made up book. We do agree!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The ultrasound can be used during pregnancy to show images of the baby, amniotic sac, placenta, and ovaries. Major anatomical abnormalities or birth defects are visible on an ultrasound.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/ultrasound

Definition
By Mayo Clinic Staff

• A fetal ultrasound, or sonogram, is an imaging technique that uses high-frequency sound waves to produce images of a baby in the uterus.

You have to learn when someone is speaking colloquially. I will not discuss this topic with justlook when he uses loaded and dishonest terminology.

 

[The Cadet]

The first question I'd ask is, why is this person wishing to prove the bible wrong? What spirit is influencing them to do that? What is their motive?

You missed my point completely. It's not about proving the bible wrong. It's about establishing whether or not the bible is true.

You believe that nothing in the bible is wrong. How did you establish this?

I mean, from just pure commonsense it seems bizarre to me; the bible is a book describing countless things that, to our knowledge, just simply do not happen - people rising from the dead, snakes and donkeys talking, dragons and unicorns existing, people walking on water without technological assistance, miraculous healing of the blind, and this list could just keep going. It's like someone telling me Grimm's Fables are an accurate description of the time period - a surface reading of the elements clearly places the bible in the same category.

And yet, somehow, you've taken this book to be literally true, and will reject empirical observations that seem to challenge it. I'm asking, what standard of evidence did you use to determine that the bible is worth this kind of trust? As of right now, I'm only aware of one way of really gaining knowledge about the world - the scientific method. But you seem to reject anything in science which contradicts the bible, so it can't possibly be that you verified the bible via science. How did you verify it then?

To put it bluntly, you put a degree of trust in the bible which I would not place in anything - not even my own direct observations. I'm wondering why.

There's nothing in the bible wrong so it's really a moot question. Worthless, really.

Who purchased the Potter's field after Jesus's death?

Not that I believe in Noah's Ark (nor disbelieve, mind you), but the question you have asked has an easily-guessed possible answer.

Imagine, for example, that there were two of each animal on Earth on an Ark to save them from floods (7 of the clean versions, obviously) then whatever genetic variation goes onto the Ark will be the genetic variation that comes off of the ark.

To wit, if the cheetahs who went onto the Ark were cousins, then the genetic variability of subsequent generations of cheetahs will be substantially less than that of subsequent generations of other creatures whose forebears were more genetically diverse.

...Naaaah, that doesn't really work either. It's not a bad idea, but the genetic diversity of any two individual members of a species is not large enough to account for this change. The difference between inbreeding your entire species from two unrelated individuals and inbreeding your species from two directly related individuals simply isn't large enough to account for it.

 

[driewerf]

Give an example of where I've portrayed God as a lunatic.

About the Flood:

God had a plan, and the plan worked.

 

[PsychoSarah]

First, you still haven't condemned the practice. Secondly, you don't have a clue on how to interpret the bible...antichrist spirit and all.

God blatantly kills David's child to punish him in the bible. It isn't a matter of interpretation when something is stated so directly.