What Is Your Evidence?

[falcon9]

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere. Many concepts and notes on this page are adapted from ideas and statements that appear in The DEFENDER’S Study Bible.[1]

I did make the mistake of saying it's not a science book as the article says, but I've already proven that the bible is not scientifically accurate numerous times in the past. Your cut/paste techniques are pretty pointless since you've already displayed your ignorance by not doing your own unbiased research which proves that you're intellectually dishonest and cannot be trusted in these types of debates (that's not christian behavior...). Though it's a waste of time since your sources have already shown humongous holes, I will skim and clip a few to show that these sources are still wrong on several accounts-

Paleontology Statements Consistent With Paleontology

    Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. We think you will agree that 1˝ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot—since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible. (Actually reading the Bible would help, though. smile ) Click this sentence to see our Dinosaurs page if you would like more information in this subject area.

"Behemoth" and "Leviathan" are both mythological creatures that resemble modern-day animals. Don't you find it peculiar that only the creationists believe the bible interprets them as dinosaurs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan

Only a complete fool would say that Jurrasic dinosaurs lived alongside humans only a few thousand years ago.

The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

So life goes from primordeal ooze, to grass, to cattle?  

Ecclesiastes 1:6
        The wind goes toward the south,
        And turns around to the north;
        The wind whirls about continually,
        And comes again on its circuit.

Actually a simple search will show that most winds travel pretty randomly (ultimately they travel west to east), but that's just a blunt point. We'd have to take the Yamartino method into consideration to accurately get the technical data, which I doubt this ancient text talks about.

All in all, you've posted really poor sources full of deceit and lies which can easily be refuted with simple searches. The explanations are based merely on assumptions.
Or, as Falcon9 puts it- "Retroactive force-fitted reinterpretations of bliblical verses do not constitute valid evidence."

Now we all hold our breaths until rebuttals of your refutations are made, in the style of informal debate?

[HuffmanFamilyof4]

if god was real, then why would he let James Holmes terrorize all those people in Colorado. maybe he was watching American Idiol at the time and missed it...lol

[Abrupt]

if god was real, then why would he let James Holmes terrorize all those people in Colorado. maybe he was watching American Idiol at the time and missed it...lol

Free will is the reason why.

[falcon9]

if god was real, then why would he let James Holmes terrorize all those people in Colorado. maybe he was watching American Idiol at the time and missed it...lol

Free will is the reason why.

"Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can but does not want to, he is wicked.
If he neither can nor wants to, then he is both powerless and wicked."
-- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.

[Abrupt]

if god was real, then why would he let James Holmes terrorize all those people in Colorado. maybe he was watching American Idiol at the time and missed it...lol

Free will is the reason why.

"Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can but does not want to, he is wicked.
If he neither can nor wants to, then he is both powerless and wicked."
-- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.

This is a false dichotomy and blatantly obvious as such in response to my statement.  Is the reason you posted it to indicate that you do not understand the concept of free will or did you post it in ignorance of the meaning of free will?

[falcon9]

Is the reason you posted it to indicate that you do not understand the concept of free will ... (?)

No, the reason I posted the Epicurean syllogism was to emphasize that xtian blind-faithers don't understand the concept of "free will" from a
non-coercive and non-deterministic perspective.  If your hypothetical supernatural egregore threatens punishment for non-compliance with specious religious strictures and already 'knows' what happens, regardless of 'choices' made, then the concept of free will does not apply.  If free will means free to choose without coercive threats or, predetermined 'destiny', then the Epicurean syllogism applies.

[Abrupt]

Is the reason you posted it to indicate that you do not understand the concept of free will ... (?)

No, the reason I posted the Epicurean syllogism was to emphasize that xtian blind-faithers don't understand the concept of "free will" from a
non-coercive and non-deterministic perspective.  If your hypothetical supernatural egregore threatens punishment for non-compliance with specious religious strictures and already 'knows' what happens, regardless of 'choices' made, then the concept of free will does not apply.  If free will means free to choose without coercive threats or, predetermined 'destiny', then the Epicurean syllogism applies.

You have a poor understanding of scripture in this matter and are not one who can surmise what is a threat or what is coercive -- I am assuming you use certain translated texts sans any lexicons or concordance and that you don't investigate more closely as to what is said.  You display an understanding of time from a linear time-bound view, but God is not time-bound and exists simultaneously across all instances of 'time' as you see it.  God was in both the beginning of a man's earthly life and the end and at all points in between at the exact same simultaneous instance.  What you would consider 'precognition' is simply an innate characteristic of being multidimensional in this way.  One is free to choose regardless of any perceived 'threats' or not.  Destiny is not predetermined either, and this is something you only assume because of your lack of understanding of the implications of such multidimensional physics.  I am guessing you are like those that imagine God "looking into the future" to determine an outcome, but that is not the case as God exists simultaneously in what you consider "the future" and there is no need to look ahead to where one already is.  It seems to me that you have put such effort into trying to find fault with the Bible and God that you forgot some of the lessons of the very physics  you claim to have familiarity with.

[falcon9]

You have a poor understanding of scripture in this matter and are not one who can surmise what is a threat or what is coercive -

You prefer weaseling-out of discussing the xtian 'religious' concept of "free-will" and go diverting off into tangential speculations regarding some hypothetical egregore's 'transcending' linear time.  That's an unsupported religious belief, sans evidence and is summarily disregarded as specious.

- I am assuming you use certain translated texts sans any lexicons or concordance and that you don't investigate more closely as to what is said.

In turn, I assume you're a moron, (based upon your unfounded assumptions).

  You display an understanding of time from a linear time-bound view, but God is not time-bound and exists simultaneously across all instances of 'time' as you see it.  God was in both the beginning of a man's earthly life and the end and at all points in between at the exact same simultaneous instance. 

And the evidence supporting this implicitly specious religious belief is ... wait, let me speculate too: the 'bible', (itself, an unsupported collection of specious faith-based beliefs, sans evidence).

One is free to choose regardless of any perceived 'threats' or not. 

Sure, one is "free" to choose "eternal damnation" or, being absorbed by the xtian egregore, (become "one with" that hypothetical daemon).  Some "choice".

Destiny is not predetermined either, and this is something you only assume because of your lack of understanding of the implications of such multidimensional physics.  

I'm not only familiar with multi-dimensional physics, I'm as familiar with the unsupported contention that the hypothetical xtian egregore/daemon is hypothesized to be some sort of 'hyper-dimensional' enitity.  There are several immediately obvious problems with this string of unfounded assumptions, (not the least of which being a string of unfounded assumptions).  Unless you can produce evidence of the "multi-dimensional" existance of the xtian egregore which you proceed to base further assumptions upon, your entire premise is disregarded as specious.

[Abrupt]

You have a poor understanding of scripture in this matter and are not one who can surmise what is a threat or what is coercive -

You prefer weaseling-out of discussing the xtian 'religious' concept of "free-will" and go diverting off into tangential speculations regarding some hypothetical egregore's 'transcending' linear time.  That's an unsupported religious belief, sans evidence and is summarily disregarded as specious.

- I am assuming you use certain translated texts sans any lexicons or concordance and that you don't investigate more closely as to what is said.

In turn, I assume you're a moron, (based upon your unfounded assumptions).

  You display an understanding of time from a linear time-bound view, but God is not time-bound and exists simultaneously across all instances of 'time' as you see it.  God was in both the beginning of a man's earthly life and the end and at all points in between at the exact same simultaneous instance. 

And the evidence supporting this implicitly specious religious belief is ... wait, let me speculate too: the 'bible', (itself, an unsupported collection of specious faith-based beliefs, sans evidence).

One is free to choose regardless of any perceived 'threats' or not. 

Sure, one is "free" to choose "eternal damnation" or, being absorbed by the xtian egregore, (become "one with" that hypothetical daemon).  Some "choice".

Destiny is not predetermined either, and this is something you only assume because of your lack of understanding of the implications of such multidimensional physics.  

I'm not only familiar with multi-dimensional physics, I'm as familiar with the unsupported contention that the hypothetical xtian egregore/daemon is hypothesized to be some sort of 'hyper-dimensional' enitity.  There are several immediately obvious problems with this string of unfounded assumptions, (not the least of which being a string of unfounded assumptions).  Unless you can produce evidence of the "multi-dimensional" existance of the xtian egregore which you proceed to base further assumptions upon, your entire premise is disregarded as specious.

I didn't weasel out of anything.  I revealed the flaws of your argument and you even echoed the same flawed thinking right back at me.  I cannot help it if you are not even wise enough to ask proper questions but I did try to guess what your flawed query was about.  You then strike back at me with your typical ad homenim and baseless accusations.  Realize, that I am aware you are deliberately trolling as you nobody could be as dense and irrational as you propose to be.  The reason I reply at all is to reveal to other readers the falseness of your statements and to clean up your obfuscation.

Whatever problems you are having understanding the underlying physics (as you so indicate -- which is good to see you finally admit your inferiority in such analysis), I would be more than happy to try and clear up for you.  It isn't any specialty of mine, but it isn't completely foreign either and the subject holds no intimidation over me.  So tell me what about it confuses you and perhaps I will provide you the answers.

[falcon9]

You have a poor understanding of scripture in this matter and are not one who can surmise what is a threat or what is coercive -

You prefer weaseling-out of discussing the xtian 'religious' concept of "free-will" and go diverting off into tangential speculations regarding some hypothetical egregore's 'transcending' linear time.  That's an unsupported religious belief, sans evidence and is summarily disregarded as specious.

- I am assuming you use certain translated texts sans any lexicons or concordance and that you don't investigate more closely as to what is said.

In turn, I assume you're a moron, (based upon your unfounded assumptions).

[Abrupt]

You have a poor understanding of scripture in this matter and are not one who can surmise what is a threat or what is coercive -

You prefer weaseling-out of discussing the xtian 'religious' concept of "free-will" and go diverting off into tangential speculations regarding some hypothetical egregore's 'transcending' linear time.  That's an unsupported religious belief, sans evidence and is summarily disregarded as specious.

- I am assuming you use certain translated texts sans any lexicons or concordance and that you don't investigate more closely as to what is said.

In turn, I assume you're a moron, (based upon your unfounded assumptions).

Is there a point to your post?  Are you trying to ask me to help you understand these particular subjects -- is that it is this all your ego allows you to do in request?  I have already educated you slightly on the properties of time and our distorted perception of it so you could read back on that material.  I have also educated you on how an infinite observer outside of our universe would view its duration and how such sayings as "before the big bang" are meaningless since there is no before/after when time is removed from the equation.  These topics are not all that complex and only can seem foreign and whilst I am no expert by any means I can help you to understand them.

[falcon9]

Is there a point to your post? 

Yes, and it is amusing that it eludes you by way of your faith-blindness.
 

Are you trying to ask me to help you understand these particular subjects ... ?

No such condescending "help" is required, (especially from a mind-blinded religious fundie), in those particular subjects.  You could elaborate on how religious belief without evidence somehow does not constitute blind faith though.

[Abrupt]

Is there a point to your post? 

Yes, and it is amusing that it eludes you by way of your faith-blindness.
 

Are you trying to ask me to help you understand these particular subjects ... ?

No such condescending "help" is required, (especially from a mind-blinded religious fundie), in those particular subjects.  You could elaborate on how religious belief without evidence somehow does not constitute blind faith though.

More ad hominem from you, so what is the point with your fallacious attacks?  If you cannot debate rationally you should pursue some other task to occupy your time, such as slapping yourself in the face or some similar task that you might be suited for.

If no help is required, why do you have such difficulty with them?  I have already instructed you quite extensively on faith and I have broken it down to about as simple an explanation as I could.  I went to particular steps to make the material easy to understand on some of my last attempts, and so if you still have difficulty grasping the subject then perhaps you can find some seven year old to read it and explain it to you.  You may eventually discover that it is your "blind faith" that actually prevents you from understanding the material, but that would require more rationality than I think you are currently capable of.

[falcon9]

More ad hominem from you, so what is the point with your fallacious attacks?  If you cannot debate rationally ... 

Doubtless it is apparent, (at least to those not mind-blinded by religious faith), that the ad homs are merely being exchanged while you continue to dodge any attempts to justify your religious blind faith in xtian superstitions.  Is it fear, cognitive dissonance, simple stupidity or an penchant for ego-defense mechanisms which prevents you from facing your own irrationality in placing religious faith in that for which there is no substantive evidence?

[Abrupt]

More ad hominem from you, so what is the point with your fallacious attacks?  If you cannot debate rationally ... 

Doubtless it is apparent, (at least to those not mind-blinded by religious faith), that the ad homs are merely being exchanged while you continue to dodge any attempts to justify your religious blind faith in xtian superstitions.  Is it fear, cognitive dissonance, simple stupidity or an penchant for ego-defense mechanisms which prevents you from facing your own irrationality in placing religious faith in that for which there is no substantive evidence?

Show me the ad hominem I have committed.  While I have actually done some of this I can pretty much guarantee you that you cannot identify it because you still don't know what ad hominem is (don't concern yourself with posting a definition here either as what is required from you is an example of my usage of it since you above have declared it as "being exchanged").  I am not the one dodging, it is you doing this with your routine dip, duck, dodge, dive, and dance (yes clownboy you are dancing now again).  You can pick whatever label you would apply to yourself and use that on me, I don't care one way or the other.  I have substantive evidence for myself, but it is indeed true that I didn't begin with substantive evidence -- nor did I require it.  Just because you don't trust your own capabilities to discern doesn't mean that we all are so limited and you cannot seem to reason this simple fact.