Jump to content
• Sign Up

# Hijack from Can you believe in evolution and in god?

## Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Strange has said it twice now, and you missed it both times. The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Please rethink your premise, if this is why you don't "believe" the evidence supporting BBT.

Bingo! It is and was simply an expansion of space and time itself, from an extremely hot, dense state from t+10-43 seconds.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Strange has said it twice now, and you missed it both times. The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Please rethink your premise, if this is why you don't "believe" the evidence supporting BBT.

Ive seen the BB is not an explosion a few times in other forums, and I cant understand why they are saying it wasnt when what they are describing seems to me an explosion.  Hot dense rapidly expanding .. sounds like an explosion to me.   Theres also the problem of  Inflation, which was added, in all Ive read, because measurements exceeded expectations, the universe should have been smaller, so there had to be a period of extra rapid inflation for a time.   Adding what used to be called fudge to sweeten a theory cast suspicion on the whole theory, and Ive seen Inflation labelled entirely acceptable, but to me it wasnt and isnt.   I see another idea as better.  Strange has suggested I put in in Speculation, and Im thinking of it, but its going to arouse hostility and a lot of work, Im not sure I want to endure the attacks, personal and otherwise, no matter how politely they are cast, which they normally are not.  Criticism is one thing, attack is another.

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

Bingo! It is and was simply an expansion of space and time itself, from an extremely hot, dense state from t+10-43 seconds.

If time expanded along with space how are you going to measure those secondsÉ question mark.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

If time expanded along with space how are you going to measure those secondsÉ question mark.

Space expanded...time progressed as space expanded. Again it was not an explosion as explosions are generally envisaged. It wasn't any particular thing that was hot and dense just space...as space expanded and temperatures dropped, the superforce started to decouple...this resulted in phase transitions and false vacuums...the excesses of energy during that t+10-33 second period, saw our first fundamental particles evolve [E=Mc2]quarks and electrons...the rest is history and all explainable by science..

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

Ive seen the BB is not an explosion a few times in other forums, and I cant understand why they are saying it wasnt when what they are describing seems to me an explosion.  Hot dense rapidly expanding .. sounds like an explosion to me.

The difference is that an explosion would be the expulsion of matter from some central point into an empty universe. The dynamics of that do not match what we observe.

What theory says is that the universe has always been uniformly full of matter (obviously not completely uniform because we have some clumpiness like galaxies, etc). The universe itself is expanding allowing the matter in it to cool (basic thermodynamics).

7 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Theres also the problem of  Inflation, which was added, in all Ive read, because measurements exceeded expectations, the universe should have been smaller, so there had to be a period of extra rapid inflation for a time.

That is not the reason for inflation. It is to solve the "horizon problem" - the fact that the conditions in the early universe were extremely uniform, to reach this level of homogeneity requires that the universe was much smaller than simple expansion would allow. So a period of rapid inflation is hypothesised as a possible explanation. So far, there is no evidence for inflation (and at least one of the inventors of the idea no longer supports it). And there are other possible explanations so the jury is out on that. It might require a theory of quantum gravity to answer it.

12 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Adding what used to be called fudge to sweeten a theory cast suspicion on the whole theory

Modifying theories when new evidence is available is one way that science progresses.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Strange said:

It may be published but that doesn't mean it is correct. It is based on an assumption about antimatter that has not yet been tested (although so far results are against it). It also depends on some unknown mechanism for hiding large quantities of antimatter.

It definitely was not an explosion. We can be sure of that.

I think that the thought and picture at the time was an explosion, and that was why it was named BB, and if you consider time as infinite it certainly was an explosion regardless of length of time thought to have been estimated.   But this is getting as exotic as the concept that the number 0 is impossible in physical reality, because 0 is nothing infinitely, and we are here, therefore 0 is impossible except that its used as a place marker that could just as easily have been a square.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

I think that the thought and picture at the time was an explosion, and that was why it was named BB

That has never been the picture. Hoyle came up with the name Big Bang for a radio program he did on the competing theories (because his had a name "steady state", so he wanted a snappy name for the other).

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beecee said:

Is it? Hmmmm...Maybe you mean that this so called "anti gravity"is an explanation as to why the expansion rate is accelerating. Why the universe is expanding is an entirely different question, and probably explained as due to momentum, as created in the first moments of the BB itself.

The universal expansion is seen over large scales. Over smaller scales like our local group of galaxies and even larger, gravity decouples us from any expansion. The same way the EMF, and strong and weak nuclear forces prevent planets, you and me from flying apart.

I don't believe I am missing out on anything, since the bible itself is myth.

Then historical accounts of Jesus are myth instead of historyÉ question marks gotta be fixed and nows the time to do it.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

I think that the thought and picture at the time was an explosion, and that was why it was named BB, and if you consider time as infinite it certainly was an explosion regardless of length of time thought to have been estimated.

The BB term was an analogy much as blowing up a balloon to illustrate space expansion is an analogy. It was the evolution of space and time from 10-43 seconds. Time had its beginning at the BB instant...as did space.

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Then historical accounts of Jesus are myth instead of historyÉ question marks gotta be fixed and now`s the time to do it.

JC may not have been a myth, but his supposed divine status was.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

Ironically, for the purpose of this thread, Hoyle said:

Quote

"The reason why scientists like the "big bang" is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis"

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beecee said:

The BB term was an analogy much as blowing up a balloon to illustrate space expansion is an analogy. It was the evolution of space and time from 10-43 seconds. Time had its beginning at the BB instant...as did space.

JC may not have been a myth, but his supposed divine status was.

A few years ago I worked at a children's summer camp with Sarah, a young woman who took Physics and other stuff in U.  A lovely young woman.  When she graduated U she got a job teaching BB at a U.   What did she know except the boxes she had to tick to get the diploma?  She had no learning except U.   She told students what she had been told.   A normal education, comfortable, lucrative.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

A few years ago I worked at a children's summer camp with Sarah, a young woman who took Physics and other stuff in U.  A lovely young woman.  When she graduated U she got a job teaching BB at a U.   What did she know except the boxes she had to tick to get the diploma?  She had no learning except U.   She told students what she had been told.   A normal education, comfortable, lucrative.

You've already shown us you are willing to assert that which is demonstrably not true as the truth why should we believe this nonsense? No one gets a job teaching BB, The Big bang theory is a small part of cosmology not something you could make a living teaching...

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

A few years ago I worked at a children's summer camp with Sarah, a young woman who took Physics and other stuff in U.  A lovely young woman.  When she graduated U she got a job teaching BB at a U.   What did she know except the boxes she had to tick to get the diploma?  She had no learning except U.   She told students what she had been told.   A normal education, comfortable, lucrative.

I'm not sure what you think is wrong with that. People study a subject to certain level of expertise. Some of them then go on to teach that subject. It seems pretty normal and sensible to me. Do you object to historians, geologists, theologians, chemists, linguists, archeologists etc. doing that?

One could argue that there would be a benefit of teachers getting some work experience outside of academia before going into teaching, but I can't really see it making a big difference.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Ironically, for the purpose of this thread, Hoyle said:

Thanks for this, Strange.

"Underpinning it was Hoyle's belief that mathematics has an objective truth to it - but that truth is something that we as humans can only dimly perceive. What astronomers were starting to find, Hoyle believed, was just a tiny part of something truly awesome. A giant mathematical plan to the universe that we will only ever understand a tiny part of."                                                                                          I think we can understand most of it .. and the more we understand the more people will wonder how it all got arranged, everything seeming in its own perfect place of beauty and rest, with the flash or stream of a meteorite being exclamation points ..     '... and where did math come from?' Most people probably find that sense of supreme awe and wonder when looking at a clear night sky.   I remember seeing Sputnick for the first time crossing the sky.  Wondrous that man sent something up there.  'Can we go there too?" I wondered.  That Aristarchus knew what he knew when he knew it shows man's capability when not hindered by preconception.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Ironically, for the purpose of this thread, Hoyle said:

Probably just as ironically, it may have been the reason that Hoyle [an otherwise top notch cosmologist] couldn't get himself to accept the BB, despite the evidence...He knew it would leave the door open for the creationists and their ilk, in that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning could [in the mind of the creationists] be put down to the work of some deity: Science generally though, and to its credit, stuck with what the evidence was supporting.

Again from memory, Hoyle did have some short lived doubts on his SS, once the CMBR was discovered and identified.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

You've already shown us you are willing to assert that which is demonstrably not true as the truth why should we believe this nonsense? No one gets a job teaching BB, The Big bang theory is a small part of cosmology not something you could make a living teaching...

All I know is she moved to Australia and got a job teaching Big Bang .. that is what she told me over the internet.  I introduced her to Pascual Jordan and his idea of matter out of nothing.  We didn't discuss it, she was a young woman, I'm an old man, she has a busy life and so do I.  But we're still friends.  By the way, what did I assert as truth that which is demonstratably not true?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The BB term was an analogy much as blowing up a balloon to illustrate space expansion is an analogy. It was the evolution of space and time from 10-43 seconds. Time had its beginning at the BB instant...as did space.

JC may not have been a myth, but his supposed divine status was.

We will know all truth someday .. and the divisions will have been forgotten.

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm not sure what you think is wrong with that. People study a subject to certain level of expertise. Some of them then go on to teach that subject. It seems pretty normal and sensible to me. Do you object to historians, geologists, theologians, chemists, linguists, archeologists etc. doing that?

One could argue that there would be a benefit of teachers getting some work experience outside of academia before going into teaching, but I can't really see it making a big difference.

What's wrong with it?  Nothing if you don't want to discover,  if you just want a comfortable living.  Her summer work experience was great during her U years, with children up to 16, and her education is not over.   I told her Jordan's theory of a star coming from nothing, "If a star's negative gravitational energy balances its positive rest mass energy."  That proposal that so stunned Einstein, who proposed a Nobel for him.  But Jordan had been a member of the Nazi Party, and worse yet his proposal did away with the need for BB, so he didn't get the Nobel along with other Quantum Mechanics founders and Quantum Field theories, he being among the foremost, according to history.  http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Jordan_Pascual.html      Regarding Sarah, what she 'knew' about cosmology, until I told her about Jordan, was the standard formula.  That formula she would be expected to hand down, and she would.  I don't know if she did personal research after.  Even though we will always consider each other friends, we don't communicate much, she may be married with children now, not working at U. whatever.  The summer camp was all girls', she was a Leader, I have an affinity with children, we had and have a spiritual bond, but she's far away.

Edited by coffeesippin
Stuff

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

All I know is she moved to Australia and got a job teaching Big Bang .. that is what she told me over the internet.  I introduced her to Pascual Jordan and his idea of matter out of nothing.  We didn't discuss it, she was a young woman, I'm an old man, she has a busy life and so do I.  But we're still friends.  By the way, what did I assert as truth that which is demonstratably not true?

We will know all truth someday .. and the divisions will have been forgotten.

Her summer work experience was good during school, with children up to 16, and her education is not over.   I told her Jordan's theory of a star coming from nothing, "If a star's negative gravitational energy balances its positive rest mass energy."  That proposal that so stunned Einstein, who proposed a Nobel for him.  But Jordan had been a member of the Nazi Party, and worse yet his proposal did away with the need for BB, so he didn't get the Nobel along with other Quantum Mechanics founders and Quantum Field theories, he being among the foremost, according to history.  http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Jordan_Pascual.html

You claimed the Bible is 99.9999999999% true... not true in fact the very opposite is true... Again, The BB is not a subject that is taught alone, that would be like someone teaching one verse in your bible and nothing else...

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

No, I said YOUR understanding of what the bible is about comprises 99.+those other nines% of what the bible is about, though I should change that to 'what I know about your understanding of what the bible is about."  The King James Bible is 100% true in every word.

In your experience BB is not taught alone.  Sarah told me she was teaching BB.  I suppose you might want to call her a liar?

No I am saying you are mistaken and no the Kings James is not true, it's not even an accurate translation...

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

No I am saying you are mistaken and no the Kings James is not true, it's not even an accurate translation...

Here's a proposal:  I'll tell you why the KJV is 100% accurate, then you tell me why it's not accurate.

I began reading and studying the KJV 41 years ago, sometimes with the help of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.  If I had doubts of words in those years I turned to Strong's.  When I was converted to Christ the Holy Spirit told me the KJV was a perfect book.  I have had NO reason since to question beyond the Strong's, as every word matches every meaning and intention.  One example of the KJV's perfection is John Baptist telling soldiers, "Do violence to no man."  This alone would end war.  Jesus says, "Put up thy sword, for those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."  That is perfect agreement found in few other translations.

Okay Moontan .. you're turn.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Here's a proposal:  I'll tell you why the KJV is 100% accurate, then you tell me why it's not accurate.

I began reading and studying the KJV 41 years ago, sometimes with the help of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.  If I had doubts of words in those years I turned to Strong's.  When I was converted to Christ the Holy Spirit told me the KJV was a perfect book.  I have had NO reason since to question beyond the Strong's, as every word matches every meaning and intention.  One example of the KJV's perfection is John Baptist telling soldiers, "Do violence to no man."  This alone would end war.  Jesus says, "Put up thy sword, for those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."  That is perfect agreement found in few other translations.

Okay Moontan .. you're turn.

Well let's see, bats are not birds, no world wide flood ever happened, the earth was not created in 6 days, no man was ever swallowed by a fish and regurgitated days later alive. Jesus said for slaves to obey their masters while the old testament actually allows slavery no eyewitness sources wrote anything of the four gospels, the city of Tir is still not just standing but still being lived in.

Just because it agrees with other books that are bullshit doesn't mean it's true...

MY copy of Lord of the Rings is 100% accurate to earlier printings, doesn't make it true...

Oh and BTW please demonstrate the holy spirit exists before you use it as a source of factual information...

Edited by Moontanman

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Well let's see, bats are not birds, no world wide flood ever happened, the earth was not created in 6 days, no man was ever swallowed by a fish and regurgitated days later alive. Jesus said for slaves to obey their masters while the old testament actually allows slavery no eyewitness sources wrote anything of the four gospels, the city of Tir is still not just standing but still being lived in.

Just because it agrees with other books that are bullshit doesn't mean it's true...

MY copy of Lord of the Rings is 100% accurate to earlier printings, doesn't make it true...

Oh and BTW please demonstrate the holy spirit exists before you use it as a source of factual information...

Well let's see, bats are not birds,

do you have a chapter verse I can check?

no world wide flood ever happened,

How can you know that?

the earth was not created in 6 days,

How do you know how long the days were?  The days were divisions between light and darkness.  They could have been hundreds of millions of years.  The sun was not created until the fourth day.  There are forms of light not involving the sun.  There can be lots of life without sunlight the bottom of the ocean trenches are proof of that and lots of light on the fish down there.

no man was ever swallowed by a fish and regurgitated days later alive.

Smithsonian says it's possible:    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/could-a-whale-accidentally-swallow-you-it-is-possible-26353362/

Okay, so whale sharks won’t swallow you. But what about toothed whales? They do sometimes swallow prey whole, so you could fit down their esophagus. Sperm whales sometimes swallow squid whole, so it could definitely manage a human. In fact, there’s a story of a sailor being swallowed by a sperm whale off the Falkland Islands in the early 1900s. The story says that aftter sailors chased a sperm whale for several hours, the whale caused a few men to be pitched in to the ocean. Then, well, this happened:

The whale was dead, and in a few hours the great body was lying by the ship’s side, and the men ere busy with axes and spades cutting through the flesh to secure the fat. They worked all day and part of the night. They resumed operations the next forenoon, and were soon down to the stomach, which was to be hoisted to the deck. The workmen were startled while labouring to clear it and to fasten the chain about it to discover something doubled up in it that gave spasmodic signs of life. The vast pouch was hoisted to the deck and cut open, and inside was found the missing sailor, doubled up and unconscious. He was laid out on the deck and treated to a bath of sea-water, which soon revived him, but his mind was not clear, and he was placed in the captain’s quarters, where he remained to weeks a raving lunatic. He was carefully treated by the captain and officers of the ship, and he finally began to get possession of his senses. At the end of the third week he had finally recovered from the shock, and resumed his duties.

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/could-a-whale-accidentally-swallow-you-it-is-possible-26353362/#BlpxiCYtIjEBPrrX.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter Jesus said for slaves to obey their masters while the old testament actually allows slavery Jesus did not say that one of the apostles did, Paul I think. Slaves were commonplace in those days, like employees today. What does that have to do with biblical accuracy? no eyewitness sources wrote anything of the four gospels, Mathew Mark and John. Luke was a physician who knew the apostles and who received his knowledge from them, Luke 1:1and2, Luke was also a friend of Paul's who called him "the beloved physician." the city of Tir is still not just standing but still being lived in. Tir? You mean Tyre? I might look into that, but cities in the east were destroyed in wars and rebuilt so many times they ended up sitting on artificial hills with the destroyed cities in layers beneath them. Oh and BTW please demonstrate the holy spirit exists before you use it as a source of factual information. I think my patience in the face of severe abuse and even lewdness on this forum is a demonstration. I think that the forum has a section for religion is another demonstration. Moontanman .. Tyre .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon ... the old city is an archceological site. the new city built alongside it, near it, around it, whatever. And in any case, with the middle east conflict, the entire city could end up leveled. If you could provide a chapter verse I'll look into it further. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 1 minute ago, coffeesippin said: Well let's see, bats are not birds, do you have a chapter verse I can check? Leviticus 11:13-19 New International Version (NIV) 13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture,14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. 1 minute ago, coffeesippin said: no world wide flood ever happened, How can you know that? Geology tells us that, biology tells us that, cosmology tells us that, there are no windows to heaven to let water in, no place for the water to go afterwards, all land based trees would have died after a year underwater as would all cephalopods, echinoderms, the vast majority of freshwater fish and saltwater fish, even whales would die after a year of water of such low salinity. All l insects and any other land dwelling organisms that do not breathe through nostrils. It is had happened it would have resulted in an obvious genetic bottleneck in all land creatures, there is no way for such animals to be spread back to their original habitats much less have gotten to the middle east to start with. The entire story is nothing but a plagiarized fairy take from the epic of Gilgamesh... 1 minute ago, coffeesippin said: the earth was not created in 6 days, How do you know how long the days were? The days were divisions between light and darkness. They could have been hundreds of millions of years. The sun was not created until the fourth day. There are forms of light not involving the sun. There can be lots of life without sunlight the bottom of the ocean trenches are proof of that and lots of light on the fish down there. Without the sun there could have been no days, to claim that days meant something else is dishonest at the very least and points to a god who lies. There can be no free oxygen without sunlight, we know that life in its current state did not spring into existence ex nihilo, the order of creation of plants and animals is incorrect we know the sun came first before there was an earth, the moon is not a light and your attempt to obfuscate this shows your own dishonesty... 1 minute ago, coffeesippin said: no man was ever swallowed by a fish and regurgitated days later alive. Smithsonian says it's possible: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/could-a-whale-accidentally-swallow-you-it-is-possible-26353362/ Okay, so whale sharks won’t swallow you. But what about toothed whales? They do sometimes swallow prey whole, so you could fit down their esophagus. Sperm whales sometimes swallow squid whole, so it could definitely manage a human. In fact, there’s a story of a sailor being swallowed by a sperm whale off the Falkland Islands in the early 1900s. The story says that aftter sailors chased a sperm whale for several hours, the whale caused a few men to be pitched in to the ocean. Then, well, this happened: The whale was dead, and in a few hours the great body was lying by the ship’s side, and the men ere busy with axes and spades cutting through the flesh to secure the fat. They worked all day and part of the night. They resumed operations the next forenoon, and were soon down to the stomach, which was to be hoisted to the deck. The workmen were startled while labouring to clear it and to fasten the chain about it to discover something doubled up in it that gave spasmodic signs of life. The vast pouch was hoisted to the deck and cut open, and inside was found the missing sailor, doubled up and unconscious. He was laid out on the deck and treated to a bath of sea-water, which soon revived him, but his mind was not clear, and he was placed in the captain’s quarters, where he remained to weeks a raving lunatic. He was carefully treated by the captain and officers of the ship, and he finally began to get possession of his senses. At the end of the third week he had finally recovered from the shock, and resumed his duties. Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/could-a-whale-accidentally-swallow-you-it-is-possible-26353362/#BlpxiCYtIjEBPrrX.99 Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only$12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Again your own dishonesty betrays you, that was nothing but a mariners story which the smithsonian says was not possible. Frome your own link

Quote

In reality, this is unlikely. Sperm whales have four stomach chambers, like a cow, full of digestive enzymes. Plus, there’s no air inside a stomach. The Naked Scientist addressed this question as well, saying:

If there is any gas inside a whale, it’s probably methane, and that’s not going to help you out very much. We do know that whales can be flatulent, so there is some gas. They do have gassy pockets, but it’s not air, not good to breath. Certainly, no air inside a fish, so I think that’s really what’s going to get you in the end. So I’m afraid no.

So if the moral here is, whale sharks can’t and won’t swallow you. Sperm whales might, and if they do, you’re basically doomed.

1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

Jesus said for slaves to obey their masters while the old testament actually allows slavery

Jesus did not say that one of the apostles did, Paul I think.  Slaves were commonplace in those days, like employees today.                What does that have to do with biblical accuracy?

You think wrong, jesus said it, he never said anything about stopping slavery or slaves trying to get their freedom, slavery is morally wrong and telling slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones like they would Jesus is morally wrong..

1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

no eyewitness sources wrote anything of the four gospels,

Mathew Mark and John.  Luke was a physician who knew the apostles and who received his knowledge from them,                              Luke 1:1and2, Luke was also a friend of Paul's who called him "the beloved physician."

No, all biblical scholars say the gospels were anonymous, if you have a source that negates that please give it.

1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

the city of Tir is still not just standing but still being lived in.

Tir?  You mean Tyre?  I might look into that, but cities in the east were destroyed in wars and rebuilt so many times they ended            up sitting on artificial hills with the destroyed cities in layers beneath them.

No the bible says the city of "Tyre" yes i spelled it incorrectly, would be destroyed, sink into the water and never be anything but a shallow place for fishermen to cast their nets.

Quote

Ezekiel 26:11 “With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword; and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 12) They will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13) And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14) I will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for the spreading of nets; you shall never be rebuilt; for I the Lord have spoken, says the Lord God.”

Do you hear laughter from serious historians? After 13 years of siege, Nebuchadrezzar had to settle for a negotiated settlement. His horses did not enter Tyre, did nottrample the streets of Tyre, and he did not slay the inhabitants thereof. A few Phoenicians surely died in the fighting, but that scarcely fulfills the prophecy. Neither were the stones and timber of Tyre (as a whole) thrown into the water. As noted, Tyre lies beneath the modern city, beneath the rubble of later occupation levels—NOT beneath the sea.

1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

Oh and BTW please demonstrate the holy spirit exists before you use it as a source of factual information.

I think my patience in the face of severe abuse and even lewdness on this forum is a demonstration.   I think that the forum has          a section for religion is another demonstration.

You are the one who brought this silly shit up, you are the one who made the assertions. I simply pointed out you were wrong. Anything else you like me to destroy today?

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Leviticus 11:13-19 New International Version (NIV)

13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture,14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

Geology tells us that, biology tells us that, cosmology tells us that, there are no windows to heaven to let water in, no place for the water to go afterwards, all land based trees would have died after a year underwater as would all cephalopods, echinoderms, the vast majority of freshwater fish and saltwater fish, even whales would die after a year of water of such low salinity. All l insects and any other land dwelling organisms that do not breathe through nostrils. It is had happened it would have resulted in an obvious genetic bottleneck in all land creatures, there is no way for such animals to be spread back to their original habitats much less have gotten to the middle east to start with. The entire story is nothing but a plagiarized fairy take from the epic of Gilgamesh...

Without the sun there could have been no days, to claim that days meant something else is dishonest at the very least and points to a god who lies. There can be no free oxygen without sunlight, we know that life in its current state did not spring into existence ex nihilo, the order of creation of plants and animals is incorrect we know the sun came first before there was an earth, the moon is not a light and your attempt to obfuscate this shows your own dishonesty...

Again your own dishonesty betrays you, that was nothing but a mariners story which the smithsonian says was not possible. Frome your own link

You think wrong, jesus said it, he never said anything about stopping slavery or slaves trying to get their freedom, slavery is morally wrong and telling slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones like they would Jesus is morally wrong..

No, all biblical scholars say the gospels were anonymous, if you have a source that negates that please give it.

No the bible says the city of "Tyre" yes i spelled it incorrectly, would be destroyed, sink into the water and never be anything but a shallow place for fishermen to cast their nets.

You are the one who brought this silly shit up, you are the one who made the assertions. I simply pointed out you were wrong. Anything else you like me to destroy today?

Destroy? "Satan comes not but for to kill and destroy."  So if you are destroying you're doing his work, and with his language too.

God's not done with Tyre, "in the latter days shall be earthquakes ...."  etc.  As a matter of fact, as most of Tyre is build on silt it will be easy to sink it.  And as we're do for a couple of close asteroid flybyes or collisions in 10 or 15 years it's easy to see it happening. If you're young enough now, you might see it happen.  The bible talks about the 'shaking of the earth casting off its inhabitants.'

You provided no references for your 'all biblical scholars' who say the gospels were anonymous, and that's quite a statement, as you don't know all the tens of thousands of biblical scholars, and you haven't read all the scholars' works and opinions.  The gospels themselves tell who wrote them.

I'll have to check the Smithsonian story again, but for you to say I'm being dishonest as if I lied is an accusation and a condemnation of what could amount to an error on my part.  I will read the entire page.

Your lack of scientific knowledge about what ife is possible without the sun is not up to date.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wandering-in-the-void-billions-of-rogue-planets-without-a-home/   There is much up to date scientific speculation that many of those planets are warm enough to support life without the sun, as at the bottom of earth's oceanic trenches, as beneath the ice of the moons of Saturn/Jupiter which have liquid oceans beneath their ice.

You are almost a flat Earther if you deny the possibility that there cannot be light without the sun (volcanic heat one source, chemical light another) or that a planet can revolve faster or slower as time passes.

Gilgamesh.  Check your time lines.  Check how well a cubic Babylonian ark would do in a flood against the design of the Genesis ark.

The bat? "In Birds, Bats and kiwi are mammals. They don't lay eggs. They don't hatch them. They directly give birth to their young ones. So, they are birds as well as mammals." https://www.quora.com/Which-bird-is-a-mammal  Genesis came first with its definition of birds.  If some latter day scientists want to change the definition to suit their unbelief that's their choice.

The flood? There are oceans beneath the earth.  https://www.google.ca/search?q=oceans+inside+the+earth&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=oceans+inside+the+earth&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.8077j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 there is a river beneath the Amazon river with I think it is three times the surface river's volume. https://www.livescience.com/15849-underground-river-discovered-beneath-amazon.htmlGenesis says the waters returned into the earth. Windows of heaven?  Your own favourite science says the earth's water probably came from space. I've read that if all the ice on earth melted, and the mountains were moved to the low places, the earth would be entirely underwater.   What do you know about earth's geologic history beside what you're taught in school?  How long ago did the mountains rise from tectonic plates crashing together?  Perhaps the weight of the flood CAUSED the continents to split apart, drift, and crash together forming mountains.  You don't know how time can vary, but surely you've heard of time dilation.  You don't believe in the flood so you don't believe in the ark either that saved the animals.  Trees can regenerate after floods and after fires.  Your science is poor.

Slaves were a factor of life.  Man was so barbaric God told Moses to command the Jews to not eat their meat raw but to cook it first.    Paul told a brother in Christ to treat his slave Onesimus as a brother instead of as a slave.

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Leviticus 11:13-19 New International Version (NIV)

13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture,14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

Geology tells us that, biology tells us that, cosmology tells us that, there are no windows to heaven to let water in, no place for the water to go afterwards, all land based trees would have died after a year underwater as would all cephalopods, echinoderms, the vast majority of freshwater fish and saltwater fish, even whales would die after a year of water of such low salinity. All l insects and any other land dwelling organisms that do not breathe through nostrils. It is had happened it would have resulted in an obvious genetic bottleneck in all land creatures, there is no way for such animals to be spread back to their original habitats much less have gotten to the middle east to start with. The entire story is nothing but a plagiarized fairy take from the epic of Gilgamesh...

Without the sun there could have been no days, to claim that days meant something else is dishonest at the very least and points to a god who lies. There can be no free oxygen without sunlight, we know that life in its current state did not spring into existence ex nihilo, the order of creation of plants and animals is incorrect we know the sun came first before there was an earth, the moon is not a light and your attempt to obfuscate this shows your own dishonesty...

Again your own dishonesty betrays you, that was nothing but a mariners story which the smithsonian says was not possible. Frome your own link

You think wrong, jesus said it, he never said anything about stopping slavery or slaves trying to get their freedom, slavery is morally wrong and telling slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones like they would Jesus is morally wrong..

No, all biblical scholars say the gospels were anonymous, if you have a source that negates that please give it.

No the bible says the city of "Tyre" yes i spelled it incorrectly, would be destroyed, sink into the water and never be anything but a shallow place for fishermen to cast their nets.

You are the one who brought this silly shit up, you are the one who made the assertions. I simply pointed out you were wrong. Anything else you like me to destroy today?

Destroy? "Satan comes not but for to kill and destroy."  So if you are destroying you're doing his work, and with his language too.

God's not done with Tyre, "in the latter days shall be earthquakes ...."  etc.  As a matter of fact, as most of Tyre is build on silt it will be easy to sink it.  And as we're do for a couple of close asteroid flybyes or collisions in 10 or 15 years it's easy to see it happening. If you're young enough now, you might see it happen.  The bible talks about the 'shaking of the earth casting off its inhabitants.'

You provided no references for your 'all biblical scholars' who say the gospels were anonymous, and that's quite a statement, as you don't know all the tens of thousands of biblical scholars, and you haven't read all the scholars' works and opinions.  The gospels themselves tell who wrote them.

I'll have to check the Smithsonian story again, but for you to say I'm being dishonest as if I lied is an accusation and a condemnation of what could amount to an error on my part.  I will read the entire page.

Your lack of scientific knowledge about what ife is possible without the sun is not up to date.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wandering-in-the-void-billions-of-rogue-planets-without-a-home/   There is much up to date scientific speculation that many of those planets are warm enough to support life without the sun, as at the bottom of earth's oceanic trenches, as beneath the ice of the moons of Saturn/Jupiter which have liquid oceans beneath their ice.

You are almost a flat Earther if you deny the possibility that there cannot be light without the sun (volcanic heat one source, chemical light another) or that a planet can revolve faster or slower as time passes.

Gilgamesh.  Check your time lines.  Check how well a cubic Babylonian ark would do in a flood against the design of the Genesis ark.

The bat? "In Birds, Bats and kiwi are mammals. They don't lay eggs. They don't hatch them. They directly give birth to their young ones. So, they are birds as well as mammals." https://www.quora.com/Which-bird-is-a-mammal  Genesis came first with its definition of birds.  If some latter day scientists want to change the definition to suit their unbelief that's their choice.

The flood? There are oceans beneath the earth.  https://www.google.ca/search?q=oceans+inside+the+earth&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=oceans+inside+the+earth&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.8077j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 there is a river beneath the Amazon river with I think it is three times the surface river's volume. https://www.livescience.com/15849-underground-river-discovered-beneath-amazon.htmlGenesis says the waters returned into the earth. Windows of heaven?  Your own favourite science says the earth's water probably came from space. I've read that if all the ice on earth melted, and the mountains were moved to the low places, the earth would be entirely underwater.   What do you know about earth's geologic history beside what you're taught in school?  How long ago did the mountains rise from tectonic plates crashing together?  Perhaps the weight of the flood CAUSED the continents to split apart, drift, and crash together forming mountains.  You don't know how time can vary, but surely you've heard of time dilation.  You don't believe in the flood so you don't believe in the ark either that saved the animals.  Trees can regenerate after floods and after fires.  Your science is poor.

Slaves were a factor of life.  Man was so barbaric God told Moses to command the Jews to not eat their meat raw but to cook it first.    Paul told a brother in Christ to treat his slave Onesimus as a brother instead of as a slave.

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Leviticus 11:13-19 New International Version (NIV)

13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture,14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

Geology tells us that, biology tells us that, cosmology tells us that, there are no windows to heaven to let water in, no place for the water to go afterwards, all land based trees would have died after a year underwater as would all cephalopods, echinoderms, the vast majority of freshwater fish and saltwater fish, even whales would die after a year of water of such low salinity. All l insects and any other land dwelling organisms that do not breathe through nostrils. It is had happened it would have resulted in an obvious genetic bottleneck in all land creatures, there is no way for such animals to be spread back to their original habitats much less have gotten to the middle east to start with. The entire story is nothing but a plagiarized fairy take from the epic of Gilgamesh...

Without the sun there could have been no days, to claim that days meant something else is dishonest at the very least and points to a god who lies. There can be no free oxygen without sunlight, we know that life in its current state did not spring into existence ex nihilo, the order of creation of plants and animals is incorrect we know the sun came first before there was an earth, the moon is not a light and your attempt to obfuscate this shows your own dishonesty...

Again your own dishonesty betrays you, that was nothing but a mariners story which the smithsonian says was not possible. Frome your own link

You think wrong, jesus said it, he never said anything about stopping slavery or slaves trying to get their freedom, slavery is morally wrong and telling slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones like they would Jesus is morally wrong..

No, all biblical scholars say the gospels were anonymous, if you have a source that negates that please give it.

No the bible says the city of "Tyre" yes i spelled it incorrectly, would be destroyed, sink into the water and never be anything but a shallow place for fishermen to cast their nets.

You are the one who brought this silly shit up, you are the one who made the assertions. I simply pointed out you were wrong. Anything else you like me to destroy today?

Destroy? "Satan comes not but for to kill and destroy."  So if you are destroying you're doing his work, and with his language too.

God's not done with Tyre, "in the latter days shall be earthquakes ...."  etc.  As a matter of fact, as most of Tyre is build on silt it will be easy to sink it.  And as we're do for a couple of close asteroid flybyes or collisions in 10 or 15 years it's easy to see it happening. If you're young enough now, you might see it happen.  The bible talks about the 'shaking of the earth casting off its inhabitants.'

You provided no references for your 'all biblical scholars' who say the gospels were anonymous, and that's quite a statement, as you don't know all the tens of thousands of biblical scholars, and you haven't read all the scholars' works and opinions.  The gospels themselves tell who wrote them.

I'll have to check the Smithsonian story again, but for you to say I'm being dishonest as if I lied is an accusation and a condemnation of what could amount to an error on my part.  I will read the entire page.

Your lack of scientific knowledge about what ife is possible without the sun is not up to date.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wandering-in-the-void-billions-of-rogue-planets-without-a-home/   There is much up to date scientific speculation that many of those planets are warm enough to support life without the sun, as at the bottom of earth's oceanic trenches, as beneath the ice of the moons of Saturn/Jupiter which have liquid oceans beneath their ice.

You are almost a flat Earther if you deny the possibility that there cannot be light without the sun (volcanic heat one source, chemical light another) or that a planet can revolve faster or slower as time passes.

Gilgamesh.  Check your time lines.  Check how well a cubic Babylonian ark would do in a flood against the design of the Genesis ark.

The bat? "In Birds, Bats and kiwi are mammals. They don't lay eggs. They don't hatch them. They directly give birth to their young ones. So, they are birds as well as mammals." https://www.quora.com/Which-bird-is-a-mammal  Genesis came first with its definition of birds.  If some latter day scientists want to change the definition to suit their unbelief that's their choice.

The flood? There are oceans beneath the earth.  https://www.google.ca/search?q=oceans+inside+the+earth&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=oceans+inside+the+earth&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.8077j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 there is a river beneath the Amazon river with I think it is three times the surface river's volume. https://www.livescience.com/15849-underground-river-discovered-beneath-amazon.htmlGenesis says the waters returned into the earth. Windows of heaven?  Your own favourite science says the earth's water probably came from space. I've read that if all the ice on earth melted, and the mountains were moved to the low places, the earth would be entirely underwater.   What do you know about earth's geologic history beside what you're taught in school?  How long ago did the mountains rise from tectonic plates crashing together?  Perhaps the weight of the flood CAUSED the continents to split apart, drift, and crash together forming mountains.  You don't know how time can vary, but surely you've heard of time dilation.  You don't believe in the flood so you don't believe in the ark either that saved the animals.  Trees can regenerate after floods and after fires.  Your science is poor.

Slaves were a factor of life.  Man was so barbaric God told Moses to command the Jews to not eat their meat raw but to cook it first.    Paul told a brother in Christ to treat his slave Onesimus as a brother instead of as a slave.

I don't know what's going on with the submit reply and save functions.   Somehow I got 3 of the same postings.  It's past my bedtime and I'm tired might account for it.  I just don't know.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Destroy? "Satan comes not but for to kill and destroy."  So if you are destroying you're doing his work, and with his language too.

I don't believe in satan either and please name who in the bible satan killed? God is said to have killed millions, babies, children, men, women... who is really evil in your book of fables?

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

God's not done with Tyre, "in the latter days shall be earthquakes ...."  etc.  As a matter of fact, as most of Tyre is build on silt it will be easy to sink it.  And as we're do for a couple of close asteroid flybyes or collisions in 10 or 15 years it's easy to see it happening. If you're young enough now, you might see it happen.  The bible talks about the 'shaking of the earth casting off its inhabitants.'

Good call, sadly the bible doesn't allow for this but since you have displayed much dishonesty already I see no reason you would break your pattern here.

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

You provided no references for your 'all biblical scholars' who say the gospels were anonymous, and that's quite a statement, as you don't know all the tens of thousands of biblical scholars, and you haven't read all the scholars' works and opinions.  The gospels themselves tell who wrote them.

Quote

In the early centuries of Christianity, there were over 200 Christian gospels in circulation, all of them containing wildly varied stories and theologies1. As the Church became organized there was much worry that no-one truly knew what Jesus had said or done, so they ratified just four Gospels: They picked the number four because "there were four winds, four points of the compass, four corners of the temple", mirroring the arguments of Irenaeus in the 2nd century - "just as the gospel of Christ has been spread by the four winds of heaven over the four corners of the earth, so there must be four and only four Gospels"2. The four canonical gospels comprise of synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) plus John. None are eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life and they are all written in Greek, not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus. Many of the stories in the Gospels are copied from Greek god-man legends, especially those of Dionysus and Osiris. Although we now know them by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they are all originally anonymous3.

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

I'll have to check the Smithsonian story again, but for you to say I'm being dishonest as if I lied is an accusation and a condemnation of what could amount to an error on my part.  I will read the entire page.

I suggest you do so, my quotes are accurate...

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Your lack of scientific knowledge about what ife is possible without the sun is not up to date.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wandering-in-the-void-billions-of-rogue-planets-without-a-home/   There is much up to date scientific speculation that many of those planets are warm enough to support life without the sun, as at the bottom of earth's oceanic trenches, as beneath the ice of the moons of Saturn/Jupiter which have liquid oceans beneath their ice.

Your sad attempt at obfuscation is deceitful, Genesis was not talking about the things you're asserting, in no place did it mention anything but aerobic complex life in the form we see today. To assert anything else is again dishonest...

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

You are almost a flat Earther if you deny the possibility that there cannot be light without the sun (volcanic heat one source, chemical light another) or that a planet can revolve faster or slower as time passes.

You are being dishonest if you think any of these are part of genesis. In fact later in genesis it asserts the earth is a flat disc under a crystal dome surrounded by water with the sun moon and stars being under that dome.

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Gilgamesh.  Check your time lines.  Check how well a cubic Babylonian ark would do in a flood against the design of the Genesis ark.

meaningless drivel, your would have to show they had some actual evidence of being true before that was even meaningful.

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

The bat? "In Birds, Bats and kiwi are mammals. They don't lay eggs. They don't hatch them. They directly give birth to their young ones. So, they are birds as well as mammals." https://www.quora.com/Which-bird-is-a-mammal  Genesis came first with its definition of birds.  If some latter day scientists want to change the definition to suit their unbelief that's their choice.

That is a lie, bats are mammals, Kiwis are birds, this has always been the case despite god evidently not knowing it.

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

The flood? There are oceans beneath the earth.  https://www.google.ca/search?q=oceans+inside+the+earth&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=oceans+inside+the+earth&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.8077j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 there is a river beneath the Amazon river with I think it is three times the surface river's volume. https://www.livescience.com/15849-underground-river-discovered-beneath-amazon.htmlGenesis says the waters returned into the earth. Windows of heaven?  Your own favourite science says the earth's water probably came from space. I've read that if all the ice on earth melted, and the mountains were moved to the low places, the earth would be entirely underwater.   What do you know about earth's geologic history beside what you're taught in school?  How long ago did the mountains rise from tectonic plates crashing together?  Perhaps the weight of the flood CAUSED the continents to split apart, drift, and crash together forming mountains.  You don't know how time can vary, but surely you've heard of time dilation.  You don't believe in the flood so you don't believe in the ark either that saved the animals.  Trees can regenerate after floods and after fires.  Your science is poor.

Your attempt at disinformation is sad, none of these things has anything to do with genesis or the earth being created in 6 days. Perhaps monkeys will fly out of my ass your dishonesty is disturbing coming from one who believes in the 9th commandment.

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Slaves were a factor of life.  Man was so barbaric God told Moses to command the Jews to not eat their meat raw but to cook it first.    Paul told a brother in Christ to treat his slave Onesimus as a brother instead of as a slave.

So god was afraid to tell people that owning people as property was wrong? seems kind of timid for a god who was willing to kill the entire world. Paul wasn't Jesus, never could have met jesus and your assertion is meaningless. jesus believed in demonic possession caused diseases, claimed that what went into your mouth couldn't hurt you but that what came out was dangerous. Jesus cursed a fig tree because it didn't bear fruit out of season.

So far you have failed miserably to show anything in the bible is true and done nothing but dishonestly dissemble and side step the issues.

The flood cannot have happened, trees die when submerged for a year, cephalopods cannot survive in water that is not within very close salinity tolerances, neither can echinoderms. There is no mechanism that could allowed so many animals to actually fit into the ark nor get them to or from the middle east. Hell the ark was too small to even hold all the insects which the bible said weren't included which means they would have all died.

You fail utterly and do nothing but repeat PRATT to try and smoke screen your dishonesty... Smoke and mirrors will not make your assertions true...

There might very well be a god but not god as described in the bible, the bible is a book of fairy tales, morality tales, and parables, not facts... Biblical inerrancy is a false belief, it is demonstrably a false belief, lucky that most reasonable christians know this and understand that the bible is just mythology about their god not the inerrant word of god...

Oh and BTW, Kiwis are birds, they do lay eggs despite what your goofy links claims...

Quote

Kiwi (/ˈkiːwi/ KEE-wee)[4] or kiwis are flightless birds native to New Zealand, in the genusApteryx and family Apterygidae. Approximately the size of a domestic chicken, kiwi are by far the smallest living ratites (which also consist of ostriches, emus, rheas, and cassowaries), and lay the largest egg in relation to their body size of any species of bird in the world.[5]

Bats however are mammals in the same way birds are dinosaurs.

Quote

Bats are mammals of the order Chiroptera;[a] with their forelimbs adapted as wings, they are the only mammals naturally capable of true and sustained flight. Bats are more manoeuvrable than birds, flying with their very long spread-out digits covered with a thin membrane or patagium. The smallest bat, and arguably the smallest extant mammal, is Kitti's hog-nosed bat, which is 29–34 mm (1.14–1.34 in) in length, 15 cm (5.91 in) across the wings and 2–2.6 g (0.07–0.09 oz) in mass. The largest bats are the flying foxes and the giant golden-crowned flying fox, Acerodon jubatus, which can weigh 1.6 kg (4 lb) and have a wingspan of 1.7 m (5 ft 7 in).

The second largest order of mammals, bats comprise about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide, with over 1,200 species. These were traditionally divided into two suborders: the largely fruit-eating megabats, and the echolocatingmicrobats. But more recent evidence has supported dividing the order into Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera, with megabats as members of the former along with several species of microbats. Many bats are insectivores, and most of the rest are frugivores (fruit-eaters). A few species feed on animals other than insects; for example, the vampire bats feed on blood. Most bats are nocturnal, and many roost in caves or other refuges; it is uncertain whether bats have these behaviours to escape predators. Bats are present throughout the world, with the exception of extremely cold regions. They are important in their ecosystems for pollinatingflowers and dispersing seeds; many tropical plants depend entirely on bats for these services.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I don't believe in satan either and please name who in the bible satan killed? God is said to have killed millions, babies, children, men, women... who is really evil in your book of fables?

Good call, sadly the bible doesn't allow for this but since you have displayed much dishonesty already I see no reason you would break your pattern here.

I suggest you do so, my quotes are accurate...

Your sad attempt at obfuscation is deceitful, Genesis was not talking about the things you're asserting, in no place did it mention anything but aerobic complex life in the form we see today. To assert anything else is again dishonest...

You are being dishonest if you think any of these are part of genesis. In fact later in genesis it asserts the earth is a flat disc under a crystal dome surrounded by water with the sun moon and stars being under that dome.

meaningless drivel, your would have to show they had some actual evidence of being true before that was even meaningful.

That is a lie, bats are mammals, Kiwis are birds, this has always been the case despite god evidently not knowing it.

Your attempt at disinformation is sad, none of these things has anything to do with genesis or the earth being created in 6 days. Perhaps monkeys will fly out of my ass your dishonesty is disturbing coming from one who believes in the 9th commandment.

So god was afraid to tell people that owning people as property was wrong? seems kind of timid for a god who was willing to kill the entire world. Paul wasn't Jesus, never could have met jesus and your assertion is meaningless. jesus believed in demonic possession caused diseases, claimed that what went into your mouth couldn't hurt you but that what came out was dangerous. Jesus cursed a fig tree because it didn't bear fruit out of season.

So far you have failed miserably to show anything in the bible is true and done nothing but dishonestly dissemble and side step the issues.

The flood cannot have happened, trees die when submerged for a year, cephalopods cannot survive in water that is not within very close salinity tolerances, neither can echinoderms. There is no mechanism that could allowed so many animals to actually fit into the ark nor get them to or from the middle east. Hell the ark was too small to even hold all the insects which the bible said weren't included which means they would have all died.

You fail utterly and do nothing but repeat PRATT to try and smoke screen your dishonesty... Smoke and mirrors will not make your assertions true...

There might very well be a god but not god as described in the bible, the bible is a book of fairy tales, morality tales, and parables, not facts... Biblical inerrancy is a false belief, it is demonstrably a false belief, lucky that most reasonable christians know this and understand that the bible is just mythology about their god not the inerrant word of god...

Oh and BTW, Kiwis are birds, they do lay eggs despite what your goofy links claims...

Bats however are mammals in the same way birds are dinosaurs.

Your seeming lack of knowledge of recent science (as much water in the earth as in all the earth's oceans https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133963-theres-as-much-water-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/) as well as not realizing that the rains and upwelling of fresh water would delete the ocean's salinity during the flood to tolerable levels are understandable.   Genesis says when the flood ended the waters receded into the earth .. so once again the Word confirms science and science confirms the Word.

Your misconceptions of present day Christian and Muslim bible believers is understandable, they do believe the bible as the Word not as myth, as you seem to have given up on anything to do with the bible and people who believe in God.  Your error regarding biblical history (did you say 2,000 gospels or 200 it doesn't matter if you had read the gospels and book of Acts you would know three gospels were written by three disciples who walked with Christ and the fourth by a physician who knew those who had walked with him as well as knowing Paul who had met Christ) but perhaps you merely studied theology in one of the world's humanist-religious institutions and were led astray.)

Your lack of awareness that Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus is not understandable as you seem to have at least partly read the bible and as that account is one of the most important in the NT.   (Acts Chapter 9.)  Yes it was not Christ in the flesh as the meeting occurred after crucifixion resurrection and ascension, but it was Christ, in Spirit form.

Your inability or unwillingness to actually read what others write  ("Oh and by the way, Kiwis are birds" .. yes, exactly what the link I included said) is understandable you don't want to see your own error.  Your error about Genesis saying the earth is flat beneath a crystal dome is not understandable as you seem to have read much of Genesis,  but you seem to recognize your error as you didn't provide chapter and verse for reference.

Your anger at a just God who drowned an entire world because of the rebellion of that world against God is understandable as you seem to think you have left God and scripture behind, and you don't want drowning or the fire of Revelation to happen to you so you say those things did not and will not happen.

Apophis, 2019.  https://www.google.ca/search?q=apophis&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=apophis&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l4j35i39.21484j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8  Your seeming unawareness of some scripture concerning the coming cosmic shaking of the earth is understandable as you don't want to be one of the those who will suffer: "Therefore I will shake the heavens, and theearth shall remove out of her place." (Isaiah 13:13.) But you know the reality of the threat of asteroids and the 2029 Aphphis timeline, you will probably still be alive then and you probably have some discomfort about it.

Your misconception or spirited accusation of me as a liar is understandable as many of us will consider a person who disagrees with us a liar .. the story of sailor James Bartley has never been perfectly settled as to whether truth or mere tale,  two ships with the same name were mentioned one a whaler and one not, for instance; but it is possible for a whale to swallow a man whole as you must have seen as your scanned the story or other internet pages.   https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/could-human-survive-being-swallowed-whale-or-big-fish-jonah   The "fish" in the bible had been prepared by God for the event so the stomach juices must have been purged, and even humans swallow air into their stomachs.)   "Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." Jonah 1:17  Note the Word does not say "stomach" but belly.  The stomach of a person is in the belly of a person, but a stomach is not a belly.  We can't know the exact situation, we don't know how God prepared the "great fish."

Your reliance for scriptural truth on a website than plainly says it promotes human truth and human religion is puzzling.  http://www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html   However, 1st John starts:  "That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands of handled, of the Word of life."  This same John wrote the gospel of John and the Revelation, and was with Christ at the crucifixion, and saw him after the resurrection, and was with him at the ascension. The gospel of John's first chapter tells who that same Word is, Jesus Christ.

I guess that's enough for now.  I'll have another look at what you wrote tomorrow probably, and instead of trying to destroy, I'll try to build on Christ's foundation.

Edited by coffeesippin

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Your seeming lack of knowledge of recent science (as much water in the earth as in all the earth's oceans https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133963-theres-as-much-water-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/) as well as not realizing that the rains and upwelling of fresh water would delete the ocean's salinity during the flood to tolerable levels are understandable.   Genesis says when the flood ended the waters receded into the earth .. so once again the Word confirms science and science confirms the Word.

The oceans not being at full strength would kill many marine forms of life, if it was salty enough not to kill sea life it would have killed all freshwater life forms, it's a catch 22 you can't have it both ways. Also the water as described is chemically bonded not free flowing water. You really should read your own links. From your link;

Quote

The results add to mounting evidence that there is much more water than expected beneath us, mostly locked up within the crystals of minerals as ions rather than liquid water.

Quote

Your misconceptions of present day Christian and Muslim bible believers is understandable, they do believe the bible as the Word not as myth, as you seem to have given up on anything to do with the bible and people who believe in God.  Your error regarding biblical history (did you say 2,000 gospels or 200 it doesn't matter if you had read the gospels and book of Acts you would know three gospels were written by three disciples who walked with Christ and the fourth by a physician who knew those who had walked with him as well as knowing Paul who had met Christ) but perhaps you merely studied theology in one of the world's humanist-religious institutions and were led astray.)

Quote

Your lack of awareness that Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus is not understandable as you seem to have at least partly read the bible and as that account is one of the most important in the NT.   (Acts Chapter 9.)  Yes it was not Christ in the flesh as the meeting occurred after crucifixion resurrection and ascension, but it was Christ, in Spirit form.

People see all sorts of things, how do you know paul met jesus instead of just making it up?

Quote

Your inability or unwillingness to actually read what others write  ("Oh and by the way, Kiwis are birds" .. yes, exactly what the link I included said) is understandable you don't want to see your own error.  Your error about Genesis saying the earth is flat beneath a crystal dome is not understandable as you seem to have read much of Genesis,  but you seem to recognize your error as you didn't provide chapter and verse for reference.

Quote

The firmament is described in Genesis 1:6–8 in the Genesis creation narrative:

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.[3]

Quote

Your anger at a just God who drowned an entire world because of the rebellion of that world against God is understandable as you seem to think you have left God and scripture behind, and you don't want drowning or the fire of Revelation to happen to you so you say those things did not and will not happen.

How could I be angry at something that didn't happen or a god that doesn't exist? My anger or lack thereof has no bearing on the veracity of the bible.

Quote

Apophis, 2019.  https://www.google.ca/search?q=apophis&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=apophis&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l4j35i39.21484j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8  Your seeming unawareness of some scripture concerning the coming cosmic shaking of the earth is understandable as you don't want to be one of the those who will suffer: "Therefore I will shake the heavens, and theearth shall remove out of her place." (Isaiah 13:13.) But you know the reality of the threat of asteroids and the 2029 Aphphis timeline, you will probably still be alive then and you probably have some discomfort about it.

You keep quoting from your book of mythology as though it was true, the bible is not evidence it is a claim that requires evidence.

Quote

Your misconception or spirited accusation of me as a liar is understandable as many of us will consider a person who disagrees with us a liar .. the story of sailor James Bartley has never been perfectly settled as to whether truth or mere tale,  two ships with the same name were mentioned one a whaler and one not, for instance; but it is possible for a whale to swallow a man whole as you must have seen as your scanned the story or other internet pages.

Bullshit, your own link says it was just a story and points out a man would die immediately if swallowed by a whale... There is no air inside a whale only digestive juices.

Quote

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/could-human-survive-being-swallowed-whale-or-big-fish-jonah   The "fish" in the bible had been prepared by God for the event so the stomach juices must have been purged, and even humans swallow air into their stomachs.)   "Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." Jonah 1:17  Note the Word does not say "stomach" but belly.  The stomach of a person is in the belly of a person, but a stomach is not a belly.  We can't know the exact situation, we don't know how God prepared the "great fish."

Again you use a book of fairy tales as though it is a source, it is a claim that needs evidence not evidence. If you are going to use magic as your explanation then you can claim anything.

Quote

I guess that's enough for now.  I'll have another look at what you wrote tomorrow probably.

You are kind of sad dude, at some point all creationists have to decide whether or not to be honest or to be creationist, evidently you are dishonest...

For some reason I cannot address this in the thread so I'll paste it back here.

You said;

Quote

our misconceptions of present day Christian and Muslim bible believers is understandable, they do believe the bible as the Word not as myth, as you seem to have given up on anything to do with the bible and people who believe in God.  Your error regarding biblical history (did you say 2,000 gospels or 200 it doesn't matter if you had read the gospels and book of Acts you would know three gospels were written by three disciples who walked with Christ and the fourth by a physician who knew those who had walked with him as well as knowing Paul who had met Christ) but perhaps you merely studied theology in one of the world's humanist-religious institutions and were led astray.)

Can you you give chapter and verse where it even claims these things?

Edited by Moontanman

×

• #### Activity

• Leaderboard
×
• Create New...

## Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.