This is enough to make the Pope kick out a stained glass window!!!....

http://www.oceanartwork.com/wp-content/vp$loads/2009/01/surfer_girl.jpg

Quote:
"Small fragments of bone were carbon dated by experts who knew nothing about their provenance and results showed they were from someone who lived between the first and second century," he said.

Purple fabric with sequins - he went out in style, too.

Actually, I'm sure that hard science will prove that the 'bones' are just Iggy Pop's old nail clippings.

Actually, I'm sure that hard science will prove that the 'bones' are just Iggy Pop's old nail clippings.

Of course- Iggy Pope, the much maligned "Party Pope", whose record of tenure was erased by the Council of Nicaea. His spirit could not be supressed, however, and many future popes followed his libertine example.

Quote:

Actually, I'm sure that hard science will prove that the 'bones' are just Iggy Pop's old nail clippings.

Of course- Iggy Pope, the much maligned "Party Pope"

Quote:
"Small fragments of bone were carbon dated by experts who knew nothing about their provenance and results showed they were from someone who lived between the first and second century," he said. ...

Well, that just about refutes the fundamentalist Christian idea that the world is only 4000-5000 years old, as carbon dating can go backward beyond that.

How about throwing a bigger wrench in to works?

fyi, the Catholic Church is surprisingly more progressive on that front, they don't even deny that evolution happened, although they don't fully sanction such belief... they believe that evolution & faith don't have to be mutually exclusive to each other.

That is correct about the Catholics. The problem is Darwin's Theory and the whole premise of Christianity each have little scientific evidence to go on. Example, there is nothing in the fossil record that supports Darwin's theory. Scientifically, this doesn't even qualify as a theory. It is an hypothesis that has yet to be proven. Yet, it is taught in public school like it is The Bible. The only thing Christianity has going for it are miracles. Darwin can't take credit for the miracles.

Who was the moron on the board that stated breeding dogs proved Darwin? The breeding of dogs don't end up with a better dog. In fact, dogs have been bred to be born with genetic defects that make them less adaptable and weaker to survive. Each purebred has problems unique to their own breed non of which lend to their survival of the fittest. In fact, the breeding of dogs lend to disproving Darwin if anything at all. But the miracle of Our Lady of Fatima or even St. Joan of Arc does nothing to dispel Christianity.

Quote:

Who was the moron on the board that stated breeding dogs proved Darwin?

That was me. I was the moron. The reason breeding dogs proves Darwin's theories is because by selective breeding, you affect change. This has nothing to do with better dog or worse dog. Rather, it shows how tremendous biological changes can take place via breeding for selective qualities. Hence, if the environment changes and dog species possessing certain qualities, such as long legs for instance have a better chance for survival, they will have a better chance of breeding. Therefore, over time, the dog species will "evolve" if you will, into a very different looking dog.

Who would have thought that a Pekinese or a Chihuahua is a descendant of the wolf?

Everybody knows domestic dogs are most likely descendants from the wild dogs such as the wolf. That doesn't prove Darwin's theory. That proves in your own words, "selective breeding". Also, dogs were long domesticated at the time of Darwin of Theory of Evolution.

So, if we agree that selective breeding causes species to evolve, then there is no disagreement at all. There can be natural selective breeding such as when the environment changes forces certain traits of a particular species to aide in survival, thus causing natural selection. Alternatively, that selection can be artificial as when we breed dogs.

None of which is scientific evidence for Darwin. Again, domestic dogs may have been developed by man from wolves for man's benefit but the wolf had nothing to do with it. The interference to the evolution of the wolf is man-made and not a single species of man-made dogs is an improvement to the wolf. Thus, the natural evolution of the wolf is unchanged. The wolf is still the big bad wolf. And to add insult to injury there is nothing in the fossil records that suggest a specie before the wolf that evolved into the wolf. Paleontologists can only speculate or "strongly accept" as a group on the evolution of the wolf but they have nothing else. Like Christianity, if we strongly believe enough in something it becomes real. But that shit don't fly in the scientific world except for Darwin. Darwin has become the religion of science. But there are no miracles in Darwinism. It will be forevermore chained to the scientific method.

BTW, the religion of Darwin is the result of a substitute teacher in Tennessee by the name of John Scopes who had nothing to lose but $100 and no background in the biology course he taught. This is where Darwin's Theory of Evolution was brought before the controlling influence of law. Lets not let law get in the way of the scientific method. The scientific method has no controlling philosophical jurisdictions. Don't let blind faith prevent us from gathering truth. The "Monkey Trial" is not the truth. The "Monkey Trial" was neither a miracle nor scientific evidence to support Darwinism. It was a kangaroo court. No pun intended. The ACLU has no scientific evidence to support Darwin. And it was never their intent to provide such evidence. The ACLU cannot have it both ways. It is easier for the ACLU to force the teaching of Darwin in public schools than to get, "In God We Trust" off our coins. The latter being what is really important to the ACLU. They can care less about Darwin in the long run. Darwin is just a mean to their end. Even Christianity as a whole can care less about Darwin. Darwin was just man. It was never his intent to support the ACLU. An organization that did not exist in his time and one that he would not had supported. If Darwin was here today and saw what was being said and done in his name he would never stop throwing up.

Quote:
fyi, the Catholic Church is surprisingly more progressive on that front, they don't even deny that evolution happened, although they don't fully sanction such belief... they believe that evolution & faith don't have to be mutually exclusive to each other.

The Catholic Church has always been good at changing to fit whatever they feel is to their benefit at any particular time.
After all it did evolve (pun intended) from the apostasy of the second century C.E. by combining Christian and non-christian beliefs that helped to solidify the people living under the Roman empire. By the third century pagans and Christians, that were so very different in the first century, had become almost indistinguishable in many ways.

Lin

Although I don't agree with everything Lamont wrote, I would go one step further and say that there is more scientific evidence for what is written in the Bible than there is for the "religion of Darwin".

Lin

If a dog CAN evolve from the wolf by whatever means, that is evidence that species can change. If species CAN change, chances are they WILL change. This change in species IS evolution.

Criminy. There is no "religion of Darwin" and you should know that. And to say that there is more scientific evidence for Bible stories than for evolution is more than just wrong, it is colossally, intentionally "big lie" wrong. If you actually believe what you say, then you are living in a hermetically sealed world and are swallowing someone's ignorant dogma. Wake up. Study some science; don't blindly follow the fundies.

Criminy, show us something? We want to believe your bullshit. What's with the paranoid talking points? Palin The Christian isn't going to win the presidency someday. You can run back to Democratic Underground with your brand of shit in a jar.

Quote:
If a dog CAN evolve from the wolf by whatever means, that is evidence that species can change. If species CAN change, chances are they WILL change. This change in species IS evolution.

"Chances are" is far from scientific evidence. What you describe in domestic dogs is more development than natural selective evolution. It doesn't help Darwin's argument. "Chances are" there is a God. "Chances are" Darwin is correct. Same thing.

You don't have to "believe" in science. Look, listen, try it out. No leap of faith necessary. We don't "believe" in electricity; we see evidence that it exists and can do things, and we can think of things (make predictions) and see how it works.
The Theory of Electricity is incomplete, and has gaps, as do ALL theories, scientifically speaking. That doesn't mean it's "just a theory", in the non-scientific vernacular.

Nobody is stating to believe in science. I argued in favor of the scientific method. Not against it. Scientifically prove Darwin's theory or embrace it no different than one embraces Christianity. In other words, you have no proof there is a God and you have no proof Darwin is the way to go. Darwinists have a double-edged sword. One edge is the science the other is belief. Christianity is a religion and not a science. It doesn't need science to make sense. It's only requirement is belief and faith. Lilies in the field and what they do, how they look, and why they are there is all that matters to a Christian. BTW, you may find this hard to believe but a shitload of Christians study science and don't mix their science with their religion. These are the Christians you need to be afraid of and not the so-called fundamentalists that are persecuted by naive imbeciles on the Internet, newspapers, and television. Some of you people are going after the easier softer target, which is a waste of time. Knock yourselves out.

Quote:
Nobody is stating to believe in science. I argued in favor of the scientific method. Not against it. Scientifically prove Darwin's theory or embrace it no different than one embraces Christianity. In other words, you have no proof there is a God and you have no proof Darwin is the way to go.

Go to a university library and look at the stacks of biology books and papers - there's your support of Darwin's theory, and further elaboration of it. Theories have supportive or non-supportive evidence. Once it becomes overwhelmingly supported, you can say you have "proof", if you really want to use that word. So - evolution is incredibly well supported. One accepts it based on the support/evidence/proof.
Accept Christianity or another religion if you like. However, you make that choice NOT because it is proved but because make a leap of faith for some combination of personal/social/cultural reasons (wishful thinking, where you were born, etc). There is no proof of god. What "evidence" there is for god is explained far better by naturalistic explanations. Miracles? yeah, right. And if you do like those, then please explain away the miracles of your rival religions, denominations, etc.

Quote:

Go to a university library and look at the stacks of biology books and papers - there's your support of Darwin's theory, and further elaboration of it. Theories have supportive or non-supportive evidence. Once it becomes overwhelmingly supported, you can say you have "proof", if you really want to use that word. So - evolution is incredibly well supported. One accepts it based on the support/evidence/proof.
Accept Christianity or another religion if you like. However, you make that choice NOT because it is proved but because make a leap of faith for some combination of personal/social/cultural reasons (wishful thinking, where you were born, etc). There is no proof of god. What "evidence" there is for god is explained far better by naturalistic explanations. Miracles? yeah, right. And if you do like those, then please explain away the miracles of your rival religions, denominations, etc.

I know science (and believe in it were it is proven and not just a theory) and I know that more than a few scientists would also disagree with your statements.
Most of your points would take a lot of time to argue, so I will just answer the last one, no miracle needed. I will state one thing though about the Bible, it is not a science text book, but even though it was written 3,500 to 2,000 years ago when it touches on something "scientific" it proves to be accurate. Something to think about in comparison to other books written at the time.

To, in a simplified way, answer your last question, Satan told the first lie in order to receive worship from humans, he has continued this throughout the centuries. Some humans want the truth about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going, others want their ears tickled so they can do as they please (many so-called Christians fall into this category). Satan has provided the confusion of many religions (including the many different beliefs in Christendom) to cause people to give up in trying to find the truth or so that they can find the religion to "tickle" their ears.

Lin

Quote:
So, if we agree that selective breeding causes species to evolve, then there is no disagreement at all.

The Bible is not at odds with human science on this, the Bible allows for change within each "kind". It is still a dog, it has not become a horse or whatever. The Bible states that all things reproduce according to its "kind". Man was the only creation with the (limited) ability to display the Creators qualities of love, justice, wisdom, and power (other kinds have power, but only humans have the ability to control it based on the other three attributes).

Lin

One other thought, the idea and the mathematical odds that life came about on its own, to me, requires more faith than anything actually in the Bible (not things some "Christian" religions teach).
Here is the Bible's definition of faith:
Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

Lin

I've been to a university library. My degree is in the liberal arts. Liberal Arts majors study everything including science. There is nothing in the books that support Darwin's theory. Read carefully. The books only accept Darwin's Theory. They provide no scientific evidence. It is really not even a theory. It doesn't even pass the theory test. It's still just an hypothesis.

There are a lot of books in the university library on religion. All religions. I suppose that makes each religion absolute? That there is in fact a God, Allah, Buddha, and so forth.

You should read what I write with less bias, BillB. Like Darwin is a double-edged sword, which you keep falling on. Religion isn't constrained by the scientific method. Science 101, The Scientific Method. The scientific method is more abused than the Bible. Rarely does one find scientific discoveries in an idealized, rational, and orderly fashion. I've been using the scientific method on Darwin all along. Since it is an hypothesis I've been arguing that it is false based on the lack of any real tangible evidence. I've been using the same argument many use against religion, which is not required to be subjected to the scientific method. Religion is not an hypothesis. Example, there is nothing in the Bible in the form of a scientific hypothesis of its existence. The existence of religion is philosophical. The existence of Darwin's Theory is scientific. You can argue until you're blue in the face that Darwin is correct in a philosophical manner. In the end, you got an empty paper sack. Go to a university. You will find Darwin taught in the science department. When everything is said and done the professors need to go outside and look at the fossil record. Darwin is buried in the fossil record. Thus far, they have found nothing. But suppose the title of this thread is correct? The remains of St. Paul have been found? At least The Church performed carbon dating on what they found. You should at least be impressed that they went that far. There is no requirement to do so. Especially, since Constantine built a church over the grave. Our government buried John F. Kennedy at Arlington Cemetery. 2,000 years from now some nimrod like Buddha , born and raised on another planet, will start a cyber thread about how ridiculous some discovery of a grave with an ancient gas line to it is the grave of John F. Kennedy while a group of archeologists were digging up Arlington Cemetery on Earth. Nevertheless, the discovery of the remains of St. Paul prove there is a God about as much as the future discovery of the grave of John F. Kennedy proves there was a democracy, all things relevant, of course.

BTW, I'm trolling some of you people again. Only this time I'm using the same inconclusive methods that result in 50 pages of pure bullshit on the General Rants & Rave forum. I'm a most excellent troll.

Mathematical odds require no faith. They require an understanding of Mathematics.

Faith is belief without proof. No understanding is required.

They are very different things!

JoeE, that is what the quoted Bible verse is saying. Your point is?

That was directed at preistube. He said he had no "faith" in the mathematics of odds. I presume he also has no faith in any math that gives results he doesn't like.

I interpreted his post as intimating he likes the mathematical odds that life didn't start on its own. That faith is enough that God created life on Earth. I could be wrong. The post isn't written very well.

Sorry I was in a hurry.
Another way of putting it is that as far as the existence of the universe and life, I find more scientific evidence to support intelligent design and hence a designer or creator.
There are many other areas of evidence in support of a creator in the Bible (the recorded history, prophecy etc) and everyday life.

JoeE,
The very precise and reliable mathematics that you and I believe in and the universe is based on came from chance?
I think not.

Lin

Quote:
Sorry I was in a hurry.
Another way of putting it is that as far as the existence of the universe and life, I find more scientific evidence to support intelligent design and hence a designer or creator.
There are many other areas of evidence in support of a creator in the Bible (the recorded history, prophecy etc) and everyday life.

JoeE,
The very precise and reliable mathematics that you and I believe in and the universe is based on came from chance?
I think not.

Lin

One of the more interesting points are that if millions upon millions of species have evolved on a continual running basis, there is precious little evidence of species evolving on the fly, as in right now - under our noses.

We should see Darwinian action on the fly, as it were, in at least 100's of instances that should be on record, with respect to the advertised time frame of evolutionary change vs the number of extant species, vs the time that we've been watching.

I suspect and understand that there are a few instances, but -- I say that just the same.

It appears that evolution is a reality but there is also evidence of intelligent design within 100's of ancient texts which just happen to agree with one another and 100's of instances of ancient advanced technology. When you really go out of your way to look for such considerations, that is- to dismiss the internal unconscious bias that rules our thought formation and does it'd damnedest to keep our genitals and minds happy by ruling the formation of our conscious decisions. yes, each conscious internally worded thought, for the larger part....is run through a unconscious hindbrain filter..before it is even allowed to form in your mind. Thus one's ass rules the mind, unless it is recognized for doing so and one has to fight (read: realize-consciously this point) with the mind on each thought every second, 24/7/365 -if they ever hope to come to grips with that. It gets easier, the longer you work at it.

An interesting consideration is that all of the information of the Nazi party and entire apparatus that existed was aimed directly at uncovering ancient occult secrets in order to capture ancient technology. There is ample evidence to show that they did exactly that. Most of it has come in the form of papers, documents, and entire research efforts that have been exposed after the fall of the Berlin wall. Which ...the given apparatus and groups within the US government who did exactly that same thing -after the war, no end of the fits to know that their work in removing those points from history is in the act of coming undone.

One should endeavor to overcome that internal bias, to turn the chess board around and look at it from the 'other side'. One does not necessarily negate the other (intelligent vs Darwinian/evol). Keep an open mind, I always say.

Basically, we are each as blind as our given personal upbringing makes us comfortable with.

Quote:
.. There is nothing in the books that support Darwin's theory. Read carefully. The books only accept Darwin's Theory. They provide no scientific evidence. It is really not even a theory. It doesn't even pass the theory test. It's still just an hypothesis....

That's just so factually wrong that it's farcical. Evolution one of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories ever. Bonus - it's strongly supported ("proved") by multiple disciplines - biology, zoology, genetics, archaeology, etc. Denying that is like denying electricity. If you are unwilling to own up to that, then there's nothing to discuss.

Quote:
Sorry I was in a hurry.
Another way of putting it is that as far as the existence of the universe and life, I find more scientific evidence to support intelligent design and hence a designer or creator.
YOU DON'T NAME ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HERE; PROBABLY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST EXCEPT IN THE SENSE OF WISHFUL THINKING.
OF COURSE, EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT "I.D.", THE "DESIGNER" MIGHT BE ZEUS, OR THOR, OR THIS OR THAT SECT'S VERSION OF ALLAH, OR BRAHMA....(BY DEFINITION IN ANCIENT HOLY SCRIPTURES BRAHMA IS INDEED THE CREATOR). OOPS, THAT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S HOLY SCRIPTURES, NOT YOURS.
There are many other areas of evidence in support of a creator in the Bible (the recorded history, prophecy etc) and everyday life. NOT THAT I SEE. NAME GOOD EVIDENCE. (BTW, QUOTING YOUR HOLY BOOK TO PROVE YOUR HOLY BOOK WOULD BE INVALID AND CIRCULAR REASONING - I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BEFOREHAND?)

Quote:
I will state one thing though about the Bible, it is not a science text book, but even though it was written 3,500 to 2,000 years ago when it touches on something "scientific" it proves to be accurate.

For instance, in the Bible, having a seizure meant a person was possessed by demons. And these little devils had to be "cast out" by reciting certain words. Now we know of the existence of things like epilepsy, and can treat them. If you are having a life threatening seizure, dude, do you want me to call an ambulance staffed by trained (agnostic) medical staff? Or should I just call your priest instead?

Quote:

Quote:
I will state one thing though about the Bible, it is not a science text book, but even though it was written 3,500 to 2,000 years ago when it touches on something "scientific" it proves to be accurate.

For instance, in the Bible, having a seizure meant a person was possessed by demons. And these little devils had to be "cast out" by reciting certain words. Now we know of the existence of things like epilepsy, and can treat them. If you are having a life threatening seizure, dude, do you want me to call an ambulance staffed by trained (agnostic) medical staff? Or should I just call your priest instead?

This just shows how very little you know of the Bible.

Lin

The problem with Creationism is that it is based on the bible. Creationists believe the bible is the WORD and is to be taken literally. One major problem with taking the bible literally is that it says the earth has 'ends' and 'corners' essentially that the earth is flat.

Creationists are in the process of creating an intellectual underclass for themselves. They are evolving into retards.

Cite your Bible sources. Did you go to public school?

Cite your Bible sources. Did you go to public school too?

Cite your university library sources. Did you go to a state college?

Quote:

One of the more interesting points are that if millions upon millions of species have evolved on a continual running basis, there is precious little evidence of species evolving on the fly, as in right now - under our noses.

We should see Darwinian action on the fly, as it were, in at least 100's of instances that should be on record, with respect to the advertised time frame of evolutionary change vs the number of extant species, vs the time that we've been watching.

I suspect and understand that there are a few instances, but -- I say that just the same.

It appears that evolution is a reality but there is also evidence of intelligent design within 100's of ancient texts which just happen to agree with one another and 100's of instances of ancient advanced technology. When you really go out of your way to look for such considerations, that is- to dismiss the internal unconscious bias that rules our thought formation and does it'd damnedest to keep our genitals and minds happy by ruling the formation of our conscious decisions. yes, each conscious internally worded thought, for the larger part....is run through a unconscious hindbrain filter..before it is even allowed to form in your mind. Thus one's ass rules the mind, unless it is recognized for doing so and one has to fight (read: realize-consciously this point) with the mind on each thought every second, 24/7/365 -if they ever hope to come to grips with that. It gets easier, the longer you work at it.

An interesting consideration is that all of the information of the Nazi party and entire apparatus that existed was aimed directly at uncovering ancient occult secrets in order to capture ancient technology. There is ample evidence to show that they did exactly that. Most of it has come in the form of papers, documents, and entire research efforts that have been exposed after the fall of the Berlin wall. Which ...the given apparatus and groups within the US government who did exactly that same thing -after the war, no end of the fits to know that their work in removing those points from history is in the act of coming undone.

One should endeavor to overcome that internal bias, to turn the chess board around and look at it from the 'other side'. One does not necessarily negate the other (intelligent vs Darwinian/evol). Keep an open mind, I always say.

Basically, we are each as blind as our given personal upbringing makes us comfortable with.

Very nice, KBKism. You get a "B". I mean that. You do have the capability of rational creative thinking when you're not on the subject of the Bush Administration, fascism, and of course Nazism. Or anything else that ends with ism. You may find this hard to believe but "Get Smart" was just a sitcom during the 1960s. And nobody ever really got Smart. Get it? BTW, do you work twelve hour shifts?

On another note. The quote of the day goes to Scott.

Quote:
The problem with Creationism is that it is based on the bible.

I love The Open Bar. The land of Ism. Where self-described smart people with great sound equipment make a public spectacle of themselves. Turns out most of you morons are stupid as a pile shit. Dumb as a bag of hammers. I like each and every one of you village idiots. And you know who you are. God love ya! I see electricity.

Quote:
Cite your Bible sources. Did you go to public school too?

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Retard...

Quote:
On another note. The quote of the day goes to Scott.

Actually I believe it goes to you

Quote:
I'm a most excellent troll.

Sums you up perfectly.

I reeled you in with that stupid idiotic statement. The problem with trolls is they fish. Sometimes they get something worth catching and then sometimes they catch some public school drone like yourself with idiotic statements like, "The problem with Creationism is that it is based on the bible." First, capitalizing Creationism and not capitalizing the Bible was the first indication that you don't know if it is a priority or what is respectful or not. Thus, you don't know what the fuck your talking about. You do know how to start in a debate by first showing your cards. That is stupid. Not smart.

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

The phrase is still used today and means all of earth as it did during the period of the Bible. Like stupid people from the four corners of earth end up making stupid statements on Stereophile.

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

ibid

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Again, a phrase still in use today and means from or to all parts of the earth. Again, I shall attract stupid people from the ends of the earth to post stupid statements on Stereophile.

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

ibid

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

ibid

I don't know where you got your interpretation that the Bible stated for a fact that the earth was flat by using common language for, "the four corners of the earth,' and, "the ends of the earth", but you failed to understand their meaning, which is still valid and used today, which tells me you don't read very much literature or books in general. If Ernest Hemingway wrote a sentence that stated, "the four corners of the earth", or, "the ends of the earth," you would assume Hemingway believed the earth was flat?

Next time you start in with a stupid statement at least hide your biasness. "The problem with Creationsim is that it is based Bible." It's still an ignorant statement because you failed to follow up with a slam dunk but the very least the subterfuge might have worked on some other idiot. And you might have received a somewhat productive counterpoint instead of me pointing out your biased agenda because you made a mistake. I suppose if there was no Bible than you would have no problem with "Creationism". I would then go so far as to state Creationism is based on Darwin. If it wasn't for the Bible than Darwin would get all the credit.

It would be like me stating all of a sudden, "The problem with Darwin are science books." Instead I write something like, "The problem with Darwin is the science books show no evidence to support his theory in the fossil record." If you're going to allow yourself to get reeled in the least you can do is be open-minded and take some practical advice and start again. From the top. I'm assuming you're an open-minded misguided like twerp that "thinks" he is a liberal of some sort. I see in your future paying a lot of taxes. Not because you will make a lot of money. But based solely on your voting record.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I will state one thing though about the Bible, it is not a science text book, but even though it was written 3,500 to 2,000 years ago when it touches on something "scientific" it proves to be accurate.

For instance, in the Bible, having a seizure meant a person was possessed by demons. And these little devils had to be "cast out" by reciting certain words. Now we know of the existence of things like epilepsy, and can treat them. If you are having a life threatening seizure, dude, do you want me to call an ambulance staffed by trained (agnostic) medical staff? Or should I just call your priest instead?

This just shows how very little you know of the Bible.

Lin

Are you going to answer the question, Lin? Do you believe convulsions are from demons, or from medical conditions?

Quote:
The problem with Creationism is that it is based on the bible. Creationists believe the bible is the WORD and is to be taken literally. One major problem with taking the bible literally is that it says the earth has 'ends' and 'corners' essentially that the earth is flat...

Agree, except that the flat earth stuff is a just one relatively minor problem from taking a human-written book to be the Word of God. Other literalisms, such as killing your children for misbehaving, bother me more.

Quote:

Quote:
The problem with Creationism is that it is based on the bible. Creationists believe the bible is the WORD and is to be taken literally. One major problem with taking the bible literally is that it says the earth has 'ends' and 'corners' essentially that the earth is flat...

Agree, except that the flat earth stuff is a just one relatively minor problem from taking a human-written book to be the Word of God. Other literalisms, such as killing your children for misbehaving, bother me more.

Scott, you see the type of idiot you have unknowingly aligned yourself with by posting that stupid statement?

I'll answer for Lin. It doesn't matter if the Bible states seizures are from demons. The Bible isn't a scientific study. The more important questions should be directed at cleaning up the mess of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. That is supposed to be science. I believed Lin already answered your question anyway in an earlier post before you even brought up the the whole demon thing about the same time Scott Columbus brought up incorrectly that the Bible claimed the world was flat. Anyway, since you are a science guy why not chalk it up as people during the time of the Bible didn't have the science to know any better. No different than how science approached the Black Plague centuries after that Bible was completed. Hell, even during Darwin's time science couldn't explain seizures.

A few of you keep making the same mistake. You are dying to make the Bible a study in science to prove Darwin's Theory. It doesn't work like that. The Bible has nothing to do with Darwin and vice versa. The Bible is based on religion not science. D-A-R-W-I-N is based on science not religion. Religion is not subject to the scientific method. Darwin is subject to the scientific method. Taking what you believe is fiction to prove Darwin is ignoramus. Find something in the fossil record for Darwin. Some sort of physical evidence in the fossil record that shows the evolution of even a single species. Then find evidence in the fossil record for enough species that might even prove Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Quote:
I reeled you in with that stupid idiotic statement. The problem with trolls is they fish. Sometimes they get something worth catching and then sometimes they catch some public school drone...

Now who is the fish? And who is fishing?

Quote:
I don't know where you got your interpretation that the Bible stated for a fact that the earth was flat by using common language for, "the four corners of the earth,' and, "the ends of the earth", but you failed to understand their meaning, which is still valid and used today,

So you are saying the WORD needs to be interpreted, that it is not to be taken literally?

Who shall be in charge of this interpretation? You?

BTW Lamont what's with all the doll references?

moniker: "Lamont Sanford" (The dummy) - a doll
avatar: picture of puppet - a doll
occupation: "Support personnel for Team America! World Police!" - a doll movie
self proclaimed troll: yup, a type of doll

You like to play with dolls or just prefer make believe in general?

Dolls will take over the world. To the end of the earth and from the four corners of the earth.

Quote:
The problem with Creationism is that it is based on the bible. Creationists believe the bible is the WORD and is to be taken literally. One major problem with taking the bible literally is that it says the earth has 'ends' and 'corners' essentially that the earth is flat.

Creationists are in the process of creating an intellectual underclass for themselves. They are evolving into retards.

You are joking right?
Have you ever referred to the sun coming up or going down?

Isaiah 40:22 written in 732 BCE (New King James Version)

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Job 26:7 written in 1473 BCE (New King James Version)

He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

Lin