What creationists know

[James R]

Creationists might know that stuff, but apparently Carico doesn't, because so far he has failed to answer a single one of my questions about what he claims creationists know.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Why are people so immature they mock other peoples' beliefs?

The pot calls the toilet black.

[Carico]

OH the witnesses whose stories a were written in a book about 100 years after the event?
Why did not god write the book him/her self?

Without evolution the planet would be dead or neer lifeless long ago. Unless all species lived on this planet at the same time. In which case not all living creatures have become extinct yet? Maybe your god replaced the extinct speices with new ones?

Science theory becomes stronger with more evidence. If new evidence is found to dispute a threory it is debunked or the theory evolves into a new theory to fit the evidence.

There is evidence to suport evolution, including fossils, DNA heredity,Atomic decay like carbon dating. The supporting evidence makes evolution theory stronger and more believable.

The point is if a new threory can explain why there is no evolution and it is suported by evidence and new evidence that debunks the old theory, then people adopt and adapt the new threory. Pretty much in the same way evolution works

God did write the bible. But since you don't know God, then of course you wouldn't know that.

Sorry but identifying fossils is as subjective as looking at the leaves on a tree and speculating what they look like.

[swarm]

Carico:God did write the bible.

Wow, for a god his writing skills suck.

[Carico]

Carico:God did write the bible.

Wow, for a god his writing skills suck.

They're much better than yours. At least He has a vocabulary longer than 4 letters.

[SkinWalker]

God did write the bible. But since you don't know God, then of course you wouldn't know that.

What is the evidence that your god wrote it when all literary criticism of your bible shows that it was written (often poorly, sometimes poetically) by many people?

Sorry but identifying fossils is as subjective as looking at the leaves on a tree and speculating what they look like.

This statement is demonstrable of your ignorance and lack of education in paleontology. I'd be interested in your academic criticism of a typical journal article that utilizes seriation techniques and paleontological analyses to evaluate a fossiliferous strata. I'd like to see how you demonstrate their analyses to be "subjective."

Shall I pick an article for your review? I can email you the PDF.

[Carico]

What is the evidence that your god wrote it when all literary criticism of your bible shows that it was written (often poorly, sometimes poetically) by many people?

For one thing; there are no contradictions in the bible. No human(s) has ever been able to write a book, especially one as long as the bible which was written over centuries by many different people and still no contradictions. But you have to be able to understand the bible before you'd know that.

For another thing, no one has ever been able to refute the bible. Oh many have tried, but they end up having to admit their own scenarios about history can' be documented by reality or witnesses.

[nova900]

God did write the bible. But since you don't know God, then of course you wouldn't know that.

:

What I perceive as many spiritual truths in the bible and I see them in many belief systems other than christianity as well but the biggest problem with the bible is it's commentary by its mostly,if not all, unknown authors who created such a dogmatic, biased,exclusive mess which proves that God could not be the literal author of such confusion that has lead to hundreds of sects and divisions within just this one abrahamic religion.

[Steve100]

I'll give you one contradiction.
The devil is meant to be the evil one, yet I'm sure it's god that kills hundreds of thousands of times more people throughout the course of the book.

[Carico]

What I perceive as many spiritual truths and they can be seen in many belief systems other than christianity as well but the biggest problem with the bible is it's commentary by its mostly,if not all, unknown authors who created such a dogmatic, biased,exclusive mess which proves that God could not be the literal author of such confusion that has lead to hundreds of sects and divisions within just this one abrahamic religion.

Most of the authors are supposed to be unknown. That's because their knowledge didn't come from themselves. If it did, their claims would be as fallible as the claims in any human book.

[swarm]

Carico:They're much better than yours. At least He has a vocabulary longer than 4 letters.

Wow, your math skills suck like god's writing. He rambles like a drunk, can't keep his story straight like a liar, and runs around in an insane rage then tries to kiss up like a typical abuser.

Are you sure you can't do better than that?

[SkinWalker]

For one thing; there are no contradictions in the bible. No human(s) has ever been able to write a book, especially one as long as the bible which was written over centuries by many different people and still no contradictions. But you have to be able to understand the bible before you'd know that.

Clearly, I understand your bible far better than you. I've read it several times and have actually bothered to compare it with other ancient texts, finding the similarities and origins for some of the biblical mythology.

You would, no doubt, persist in refuting my knowledge as real or valid since I don't blindly accept your biblical mythology as "truth" like you do, but this is an illogical and ignorant argument to begin with.

There are many contradictions in the bible, two of which are smacking you in the face on this very forum: evolution and global flood. Clearly, the bible's mythology regarding creation and flood are contradictory to what we actually know about the universe, but this isn't perhaps what you intended. Perhaps you meant contradictions within biblical mythology. There are many of those as well. I'm wondering how many you would require be mentioned before you retract your statement above, but since a logical and academic argument would only require one, that's what I'll give. If you successfully refute it, perhaps I'll present others.

Contradiction: the lineage of Jesus.
1) Matthew (1:6-7) states that Jesus' lineage is traced through David's son Solomon.
2) Luke (3:23-31) states that Jesus' lineage is traced through David's son Nathan.

1) In Matthew, the number of generations from Jesus to David is 28.
2) In Luke, the number of generations is 43

1) Matthew records Joseph's father as Jacob.
2) Luke cites Heli as Joesph's father.

Which is true? Matthew or Luke? The clearly contradict each other.

For another thing, no one has ever been able to refute the bible.

I just did. I've done so in many threads. However, none has probably been able to refute the bible that any blind cult follower would see with a head in the sand.

[Pete]

Don't worry, Carico.

If you close your eyes and want it to be true hard enough, you'll be able to convince yourself of anything!
And whatever you do, never examine the possibility that you're not right. Just be strong of faith, and you'll never have to cope with being wrong.

[Carico]

1) Matthew (1:6-7) states that Jesus' lineage is traced through David's son Solomon.
2) Luke (3:23-31) states that Jesus' lineage is traced through David's son Nathan.

Your statements show that you understand nothing in the bible. Look at the genealogies more closely. Matthew's genealogy is of heirs to the throne. Luke's genealogy is biological. Both are included to show that Jesus is both biologically and legally an heir to David's throne.

So again, when you think you know better than God does, you'll always look foolish. The bible is the most detailed book ever written to the degree that most humans miss everything that's in there, like you just did. Thus, it could have only be written by God.

[Medicine*Woman]

God did write the bible. But since you don't know God, then of course you wouldn't know that.

************
M*W: I've asked this question a few times before you arrived, but I have never received an answer. Maybe you can help. What language did God speak when he wrote the bible?

They're much better than yours. At least He has a vocabulary longer than 4 letters.

*************
M*W: In what language is God's vocabulary. Nobody has been able to answer this question. I'm waiting for your answer.

For one thing; there are no contradictions in the bible. No human(s) has ever been able to write a book, especially one as long as the bible which was written over centuries by many different people and still no contradictions. But you have to be able to understand the bible before you'd know that.

For another thing, no one has ever been able to refute the bible. Oh many have tried, but they end up having to admit their own scenarios about history can' be documented by reality or witnesses.

*************
M*W: May I get you a stronger cup of Kool-Aid?

I'll give you one contradiction.
The devil is meant to be the evil one, yet I'm sure it's god that kills hundreds of thousands of times more people throughout the course of the book.

*************
M*W: My A-T take on this. The devil is called the Morningstar as was Jesus. The Morningstar is the sun as the name would imply (Jesus). The Morningstar is also the planet Venus, because Venus rises with the sun, and is also known as the son of god.

The Son of Man is the Sun.

Your statements show that you understand nothing in the bible. Look at the genealogies more closely. Matthew's genealogy is of heirs to the throne. Luke's genealogy is biological. Both are included to show that Jesus is both biologically and legally an heir to David's throne.

So again, when you think you know better than God does, you'll always look foolish. The bible is the most detailed book ever written to the degree that most humans miss everything that's in there, like you just did. Thus, it could have only be written by God.

*************
M*W: The lights are on, but nobody's home.

[SkinWalker]

Your statements show that you understand nothing in the bible. Look at the genealogies more closely. Matthew's genealogy is of heirs to the throne. Luke's genealogy is biological. Both are included to show that Jesus is both biologically and legally an heir to David's throne.

Really? Which one of these myths state this? Luke or Matthew? Or is it another mythical text within the bible that clarifies this.

Even theologians admit this is problematic and yours is but one apologetics' attempt to explain it away. But, in the end, your explanation is an excuse to not have to face the fact that your doctrine is pure myth.

Your explanation is discarded since it has no verification. The contradiction still stands.

So again, when you think you know better than God does, you'll always look foolish.

When you accept prima facie that your god must be the right one, assuming that there's a god at all, you look foolish. Particularly when all you do is come up with lame, made-up excuses. Anyone can move the goal post. Show us the evidence for your claim about genealogy, your gods (Jesus, Yahweh, Elohim, Satan, the holy ghost, Mary, etc.). Because, for a cult that alleges itself to be "monotheistic," it sure has a lot of gods.

The bible is the most detailed book ever written to the degree that most humans miss everything that's in there, like you just did.

Complete and utter poppycock. This sort of hyperbole is to be expected, however, from unthinking believers blinded by indoctrination and brainwashed by dogma. The lack of critical thought is fascinating.

Thus, it could have only be written by God.

Right. Yep. You convinced me with your logical argumentation skillz [/sarcasm]

[Carico]

M*W: I've asked this question a few times before you arrived, but I have never received an answer. Maybe you can help. What language did God speak when he wrote the bible?

God spoke whatever language the person to whom he was speaking spoke. God actually created languages. But you wouldn't know that because you don't know His power through His spirit. But he's just like energy which is also invisible, only much more powerful, which scientists agree can never be created or destroyed which means that energy is as eternal as God is. So even scientists know there are invisible forces.

Read the bible and you'll have answered your own question. Solomon is listed in Matthew's genealogy instead of Nathan who is listed in Luke's genealogy. Solomon was the next king down from David and Nathan was David's biological son. So MT.'s genealogy is heirs to the thrown and Luke's is biological.

When you accept prima facie that your god must be the right one, assuming that there's a god at all, you look foolish.

I can only look foolish to people who have no idea what happened in Jewish history just as I can look foolish to people who don't understand why apes can't breed human descendants. But to those people who know what happened in Jewish history, I can look as educated as they are.

Sorry but you can't critique a book you don't understand. And since you've already shown your ignorance of the genealogies, then you're not qualified to say that the bible is wrong...especially when you have no clue what happened in Jewish history.

[spidergoat]

There is a series of fossil finds (real objects, not written fiction) that represent a transition between a small-brained bipedal ape, and the gradually larger brained various Homo species that led to us (Homo sapiens). Sorry, but reality collides with creationist wishful thinking.

[Carico]

There is a series of fossil finds (real objects, not written fiction) that represent a transition between a small-brained bipedal ape, and the gradually larger brained various Homo species that led to us (Homo sapiens). Sorry, but reality collides with creationist wishful thinking.

You believe whatever you read in a science book because you never question their methods. So it's actually you who's being brainwashed unless you can look at science objectively instead of with blind faith. Interpreting fossils is as subjective as looking at leaves on a tree and imagining what they look like. So only when scientists are interested in looking at all sides of an issue instead of only what they want to see, will their methods be scientific.

[SkinWalker]

I can only look foolish to people who have no idea what happened in Jewish history just as I can look foolish to people who don't understand why apes can't breed human descendants.

You're still making rhetorical comments with no supporting premises. This is not discussion but you preaching. Sorry, but as moderator, I must warn you that preaching isn't tolerated here at SciForums.

Please back your comments with data. If you're suggesting that I've made a comment that isn't consistent with Syro-Palestinian history, please cite it and attempt to correct it. If you're saying that humans aren't apes, then you're the ignorant one since humans are Homo sapiens sapiens and members of the superfamily Hominoidea and, thus, are apes. If you're suggesting that human evolution equates to one species literally giving birth to a new species in a single generation, then you're not only ignorant but stupid, since this isn't even close to what evolutionary theory describes.

Sorry but you can't critique a book you don't understand.

You have yet to demonstrate that your understanding of biblical mythology exceeds my own. More rhetorical nonsense.

And since you've already shown your ignorance of the genealogies, then you're not qualified to say that the bible is wrong...especially when you have no clue what happened in Jewish history.

You have yet to show that there isn't a contradiction. You gave us your hope and a made up explanation, but that explanation has no supporting facts. It is completely made up. Not a single passage says anything about your explanation of two genealogies and yet you believe it whole-heartedly because it fits your preconceived beliefs.

If you think you're the first to come along to SciForums that refuses to accept any data that doesn't fit your preconceived beliefs, think again.