Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Ha, who has been feeding you the crap that Evolution hasn't been not provened false???? It isn't sound evidence 'cause you don't have a sound starting. There is so much we don't know. Never has a species evovled into another species. Again, I say, "NEVER". http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html Never has the accounts of the bible been provened wrong.The dead sea scrolls (Oldest known manuscript) had all but to differences when compared with the bible. http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2922483-2350357?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190925139&sr=8-1 I suggest you find a reference for that claim, or read the book I just linked to. I might also point out that the Dead Sea scrolls only contain the Hebrew Bible, and not the complete Christian Bible with the New Testament and all that jazz. The earth can be very old, but life how we know has only been around since God created it in Genesis. Evolution thrives off the big bang. But what's before the big bang? Dust? Where did that come from? You don't have the foggiest. The theory of evolution says allele frequencies change over time. It does not say that life came from goo or anything of the sort. In fact, it has nothing to say about the origins of life. At all. That's called abiogenesis, and it's a completely different field of science. God told abraham that wash you hands was very important. It wasn't discover till the 18th century why it was important. Proving that the bible has accurate accounts. Gone with the Wind depicts the siege of Atlanta, which did occur. Does that mean that everything in the story actually occurred? No, it's a fictional story. You cannot prove the veracity of a claim in the Bible by pointing us to another claim that has been proven previously. The bible said the earth was round. It took thousands of years for them to prove it. Everyone else thought it was flat. Quote that part of the Bible, please. Do I need to keep going on about what in the bible has been provened as a scientific fact? No one knows exactly what starts the process of DNA. It had to be started some where and given a push. Why? Why can't DNA emerge from simple self-replicating molecules that eventually produce RNA and then DNA? What's wrong with that scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSandman Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 because they need cetain motor functions/movement to start the process. I'm sorry this only about 3,000 years old. The passage saying the earth is round is Isaiah 40:22: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. This passage may reasonably be interpreted as referring to a flat circular earth with the heavens forming a dome above it. Such an interpretation is consistent with other passages of the Bible which refer to a solid firmament (Gen. 1:6-20, 7:11; Ezekiel 1:22-26; Job 9:8, 22:14, etc.). It is also consistent with the cosmology common in neighboring cultures. Isaiah 11:12 refers to the "four quarters of the earth", but we do not take that as indicative of the earth's shape. The shape of the earth may already have been known in Isaiah's time. Ancient astronomers could determine that the earth was round by observing its circular shadow move across the moon during lunar eclipses. There is some suggestion that the Egyptians knew of the earth's spherical size and shape around 2550 B.C.E. (more than a thousand years before Moses). The Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who was born in 532 B.C.E., defended the spherical theory on the basis of observations he had made of the shape of the sun and moon (Uotila 1984). If this information was known by educated Greeks and Egyptians during biblical times, its use by Isaiah is nothing special. Showing that Catholic Belief screwed up science for everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 DNA does not need motor functions. DNA is a molecule -- deoxyribonucleic acid. I suppose you're referring to cellular reproduction, and all you need then is the right chemicals in the right places. That passoge "may reasonably be interpreted as referring to a flat circular earth," says your own post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSandman Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 I'm just saying really that Evolution has not been provened fact so it should not be used as one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Excuse me, I have a link for you. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ And I'd also like to point out that "provened" is not a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSandman Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 Yes It could be, but but the rest of the bible supports it being round. The right wording might have been lost in translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I asked you to give me a quote supporting the round/spherical Earth thoery, and you have me one supporting the flat Earth theory. Now you tell me that the "rest of the bible" supports the Earth being round. You can't find a quote that actually says "the Earth is round"? Oh, and if the wording there might have been lost in translation, what about the wording of the rest of the Bible? Might some of it have been altered accidentally by translators and transcribers throughout the centuries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSandman Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 Sry, The two Creation and Evolution are both beliefs Charles Darwin called it a theory for goodness sake. He knew that it couldn't be proven, but he didn't know it could be disproven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSandman Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 Considering that it is close. To that the dead sea scrolls just had two differences in Isaiah. Did you read the rest of my post? Galileo was afraid of believing in heliocentrism and the earth being round because of the corrupt catholics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Oh, sorry, I didn't realize I'd have to explain concepts as simple as the meaning of the word "theory" to you before we could go on with the argument. In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity. Evolution is a model that helps explain the findings in our fossil record and in experiments. It is well-supported by evidence. You will similarly find that the theory of relativity, which is supported by more evidence than nearly any other "theory" on the planet, is still called a theory. Why? Because there's no way to test every single possibility in physics. Similarly, we don't have a time machine to go back and watch species evolving. We have to use the data available to us. And Charles Darwin lived two hundred years ago. I don't care what he thought about evolution. The theory has changed since then. Considering that it is close. To that the dead sea scrolls just had two differences in Isaiah. Did you read the rest of my post? And Isiaiah is just one part of the whole Bible. It does not encompass all of the "accounts of the bible." Galileo was afraid of believing in heliocentrism and the earth being round because of the corrupt catholics He wasn't afraid of believing in it. He was afraid of publishing his book explaining his theory because he knew he could face trouble from the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSandman Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 They date fossils off of layers and layers off of fosssils!!! What is wrong here? You notice in old manuscripts that the word dragon is used many time there is even draw of what looks like dinosuars. The word "Dinosuar" wasn't made until webster. How else can you explain so many accounts of dragons. All the other accounts in the Bible didn't have any errors what do you think about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Firstly quoting the bible will not get you anywhere here. As it says in the third book of Hawker, chapter 7, starting verse 8, which god himself dictated to my second cousin once removed: The words that are typed by MrSandman are falsehoods, he knows not what he speaeth and should be shown the truth. These words are the words of God. You cannot dispute this, they're in that holy text. Which is true. Ha, who has been feeding you the crap that Evolution hasn't been not provened false???? It isn't sound evidence 'cause you don't have a sound starting. You need to cite sources or you will be ignored. There is so much we don't know. Never has a species evovled into another species. You're just wrong here. Again, I say, "NEVER". Never has the accounts of the bible been provened wrong. What about the bits that contradict the other bits, or are you ignoring them? The dead sea scrolls (Oldest known manuscript) had all but to differences when compared with the bible. The earth can be very old, but life how we know has only been around since God created it in Genesis. I'm sure that man was created in the same WEEK as the earth, so how can the earth be old but man not be old? Evolution thrives off the big bang. But what's before the big bang? We do not know, and are quite happy to say we don't know. Why make stuff up? Dust? Where did that come from? You don't have the foggiest. God told abraham that wash you hands was very important. It wasn't discover till the 18th century why it was important. Proving that the bible has accurate accounts. "God" "told" many people many things... or at least that is what the modern tranlations say... but some of it is bound to be correct... If I make enough random predictions one of them has to be right. And we knew for a long time that clenliness is important, just look at the roman idea of miassima, they had no idea what was really going on but get rid of the bad smells get rid of the disease worked rather well there... God didn't have anything to do with that. The bible said the earth was round. It took thousands of years for them to prove it. Everyone else thought it was flat. Isn't there something about someone oh I don't know being locked up by the roman catholic church for saying that it was round? (although saying that, I do intend to be vague in my comment self research is important, and I can also recall some evidence that that is a myth...) Do I need to keep going on about what in the bible has been provened as a scientific fact? The bible proves nothing, it is just a story book. No one knows exactly what starts the process of DNA. It had to be started some where and given a push. That's what God did. You probably don't know about this 'cause you never read the bible. Many people, ALOT smarter than you have read and disreguarded the bible in preference of science. There is massive amounts of evidence for evolution, it is a more sound theory than gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSandman Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 He was afraid of procalming his belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I've never heard of fire-breathing brontosauruses. And some strata are dated via carbon-dating, not by the fossils within them. All the other accounts in the Bible didn't have any errors what do you think about that? Prove it. Actually, don't. The Bible is largely irrelevant. What we are worried about here is the theory of evolution, and evidence pertaining to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 They date fossils off of layers and layers off of fosssils!!! What is wrong here? You notice in old manuscripts that the word dragon is used many time there is even draw of what looks like dinosuars. The word "Dinosuar" wasn't made until webster. How else can you explain so many accounts of dragons. All the other accounts in the Bible didn't have any errors what do you think about that? That is not the only way they date stuff. There are many ideas as to why dragons are so set in our psych, one idea is that people before modern times found fossils, IMAGINE THAT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSandman Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 The Bible can be a source. You're just wrong here. What about the bits that contradict the other bits, or are you ignoring them? There is none. I'm sure that man was created in the same WEEK as the earth, so how can the earth be old but man not be old? Man dies. The earth was around before man was created anyways. We do not know, and are quite happy to say we don't know. Why make stuff up? I'm not making this up. "God" "told" many people many things... or at least that is what the modern tranlations say... but some of it is bound to be correct... If I make enough random predictions one of them has to be right. And we knew for a long time that clenliness is important, just look at the roman idea of miassima, they had no idea what was really going on but get rid of the bad smells get rid of the disease worked rather well there... God didn't have anything to do with that. Moses' era was more than 3,000 years than the romans. Isn't there something about someone oh I don't know being locked up by the roman catholic church for saying that it was round? (although saying that, I do intend to be vague in my comment self research is important, and I can also recall some evidence that that is a myth...) Well I admit not too sure about that, but his eyes were plucked out and he was put under house arrest for believing in copernicusism. The bible proves nothing, it is just a story book. The accounts prove things about history. Where has it been proprovend it was just a story book? Many people, ALOT smarter than you have read and disreguarded the bible in preference of science. Alot more foolish, because they can't accept in something more complex and amazing than themselves. There is massive amounts of evidence for evolution, it is a more sound theory than gravity. Give me proof and explain how it proves the transformation of one species to another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 The bible said the earth was round. It took thousands of years for them to prove it. Everyone else thought it was flat. Not true. In the old testament, it is clearly implied that they believed in a flat Earth, I can quote the passages if you want. The New Testament makes no mention of the nature of the planet. The fact that the Earth is round was proven by the Greeks over 2000 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSandman Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 Quote the passage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 MrSandman, I have told you before that one factual passage in the Bible does not make the whole thing factual. I have also given you a link to a website which, in detail, describes the evidence for evolution. This argument will not be allowed to continue if you consistently ignore what we say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Ok, it's quite clear that MrSandman not only has no understanding of the science he is arguing against, but the bible for which he is arguing for... MrSandman, please reboot all your memory banks and go read something, carefully and understanding it all before you turn the page over, I don't care if it's a science text, the Koran or the bible just something! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSandman Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 You can not PROVE Evolution. Something you can't prove is not a fact. It all comes to what you believe, so both should not have anything to do with SCIENCE. Don't post things about Evolution because it is your belief. I won't post creation as science. However, if I was to chose one to support science I would chose my belief of creation. You get what I'm driving at??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Quote the passage Here is one: "The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" Matthew 4.1-12 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The people who wrote the bible assumed that the Earth was flat, a flat disk about a few thousand kilometers wide with a single continent on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 You can not PROVE Evolution. Something you can't prove is not a fact. It all comes to what you believe, so both should not have anything to do with SCIENCE. Don't post things about Evolution because it is your belief. I won't post creation as science. However, if I was to chose one to support science I would chose my belief of creation. You get what I'm driving at??? You are just showing how little you understand of evolution and science. Evolution has a more solid basis than our theories of gravity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Read that and get back to us. Continue ignoring our points and find this thread closed. I find it especially ironic that you ignored my post telling you to stop ignoring the link and read it. This is your last warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSandman Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 I have to go I'll reply later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts