To all athiests out there: bring it on

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by tacoman528


That is why I believe the bible. If the bible was wrong, I wouldn't believe it.

The amazing thing is that science does as much to prove the Bible as anything else. The problem is that science takes some of the traditional interpertations and theorys about the Bible and shows them not to be true.

Mark 7:13a Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, 

I can live with that. But what is hard for many Christians to deal with is how infidels will try to use science as a weapon against Christianity.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by JohnR7
The amazing thing is that science does as much to prove the Bible as anything else. The problem is that science takes some of the traditional interpertations and theorys about the Bible and shows them not to be true.

Mark 7:13a Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, 

I can live with that. But what is hard for many Christians to deal with is how infidels will try to use science as a weapon against Christianity.

No scientist uses science as a weapon against Christianity. I don't know where you hear these crazy things. If a scientists was going to use science as a weapon against Christianity he would have to also go after all other religions, and that isn't happening.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by tacoman528
You see, I'm not against science,
I'm against evolution, and about what I said about the bible

Explain...what part of evolution are you against?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I think that's probably impossible by now. Taco seems to be a classic stonewaller, so wrapped up in his own beliefs that he refuses to look at the evidence from different angles. Eventually, he'll realize his attempts to turn people on to "Dr. Dino" are futile, get bored and leave. Then a month or so later, someone new will take his place.

Fresh meat is always welcomed...as I was on the atheist forum...LOL

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by JohnR7
But what is hard for many Christians to deal with is how infidels will try to use science as a weapon against Christianity.

It's not a case of using science as a "weapon" against Christianity. It's using science to disprove literal interpretations of certain parts of the Bible (i.e. a 4000 year-old flood, 6000 year old Earth, etc). If the scientific evidence pointed towards these things, then that's what scientists would accept. The fact that the scientific evidence points away from these things is where the conflict arises (especially when you have people trying to push for the teaching of creationism in science class, or removing evolution from science class, simply because they can't reconcile their Biblical beliefs with what the real evidence tells us).

 

[Smilin]

taco kiddo,
still waiting for your responses, or can you respond on your own without a Hovind video?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Smilin
taco kiddo,
still waiting for your responses, or can you respond on your own without a Hovind video?

lol that's mean.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by seesaw
lol that's mean.

it was mean to exclude me in his opening statement 'bring it on' too... lol... if yah can't howl with the wolves...stay on the back porch

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Smilin
it was mean to exclude me in his opening statement 'bring it on' too... lol... if yah can't howl with the wolves...stay on the back porch

lol

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by JohnR7

I can live with that. But what is hard for many Christians to deal with is how infidels will try to use science as a weapon against Christianity.

I wouldn't say Christianity is being attacked; I would say some specific doctrines are being dismissed as "apparently false". Since they're doctrines about the physical world, rather than about God or souls, I say good riddance; I don't think religions should get into the business of naming rocks.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by seebs
I wouldn't say Christianity is being attacked; I would say some specific doctrines are being dismissed as "apparently false". Since they're doctrines about the physical world, rather than about God or souls, I say good riddance; I don't think religions should get into the business of naming rocks.

Christianity or any other religion shouldn't get into the buisness of Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Evolution, Biogenesis, or physics either.

 

[seebs]

I was speaking in the generic sense.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Smilin
taco kiddo,
still waiting for your responses, or can you respond on your own without a Hovind video?

I'm also still waiting for someone to provide answers to my original questions.

Here, I'll even repeat them (with clarifications).

1) Where did all the water for the flood come from?

If you assume the Earth's topography was the same back then as it is now, then you require far more water than could reasonably fit either under the Earth or in the atmosphere.

Or, if you assume the Earth was much 'flatter' than it is now, then how do you account for the rapid plate tectonics required to push all the mountains up their present heights, and also account for the energy released by such an event (in other words, how would Noah have avoided being boiled alive)?

2) How did predators survive after the flood? They need something to eat. And such a limited prey population ain't going to do it (not unless all their prey went extinct in the process).

3) How do you explain the current biodiversity of Earth's species coming from a limited number of post-flood animals? Without evolution, I don't see how you can.

4) How did these post-flood animal pairings overcome inbreeding and other environmental concerns to produce such diverse, healthy populations and avoid extinction?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Well, folks, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a response from tacokid. After his little flurry of posts earlier, he lurked, presumably reading this thread, for quite a while. Now, it seems that he is gone. Probably rewinding Hovind seminar tape #4 or some **** thing.

If his debating skills don't significantly improve the next time he shows up, I would recommend no longer feeding the troll. He's clearly not interested in science and isn't equipped to back up his claims, and it's just depressing to see such doctinaire irrationality in one so young.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by seebs
I was speaking in the generic sense.

oh yeah...they have no buisness getting into genetics either...

eerrr..wait that isn't what you said...was it...

NEVERMIND...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas
Well, folks, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a response from tacokid. After his little flurry of posts earlier, he lurked, presumably reading this thread, for quite a while. Now, it seems that he is gone. Probably rewinding Hovind seminar tape #4 or some **** thing. 

Like my brothers always told me...NEVER bring a knife to a gun fight!

 

[ocean]

This thread is history. There's nothing left to discuss. Everything tacokid said has been refuted and proven wrong.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Smilin
Like my brothers always told me...NEVER bring a knife to a gun fight!

I always liked "don't jump in the deep end until you know how to swim". Checking for sharks first is a good idea, too

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I think that's probably impossible by now. Taco seems to be a classic stonewaller, so wrapped up in his own beliefs that he refuses to look at the evidence from different angles. Eventually, he'll realize his attempts to turn people on to "Dr. Dino" are futile, get bored and leave. Then a month or so later, someone new will take his place.

I have to agree. Just the fact that he relies exclusivly on "Doctor" Hovind would indicate to me that:

1. He's a lost cause.

2. He's one of Hovind's shills, paid to stir up interest in Hovind's prattle.

3. (Highly unlikely, but fun to think about!) tacokiddie is none other than Hovind himself, trying to whip up some free P.R.

 

[ocean]

I think #3 is very possible.