OK, I just checked my points. I was wrong. I have used it a bit. But mostly on people who have down-voted me. And I'll still bet that I use it a lot less than some on here. Like yourself. I'm certain that you are the one who went on a down-voting spree on me, shortly after joining this site. Way to welcome the new guy. Now, do us all a favor and STFU, punk!
Don't know what you're talking about. I'd bet that most everyone on here down-votes more than I do. I only use it for especially stupid people, like yourself. I also up-vote a lot of replies. In fact, I've probably given more up than down votes.
And your reply tells ME all I need to know about YOU. It had nothing of substance. Did you, by any chance, read what I posted about the appendix. It does have a very important function. Do you know what it is? I'm thinking you don't. So why don't you do a little research on that? You might learn something. You might also want to read up on junk DNA. Turns out that they are constantly discovering how important "junk" DNA is. Because it does have a purpose. We simply don't know what all of it does yet. Funny, that scientists, who are suppose to search for the truth, accepted their own ignorance about something, in order to promote their agenda.
Perhaps, you could tell us how it is incorrect. Don't give us a link. Explain it in your own words. I bet you can't
You keep thinking that, And I'll see you on Judgement Day. We'll find out who was right then.
I attacked the source because it has been proven to be biased.
How do I lack perspective? That is not the reality we are discussing here. My perspective is based on Scripture. Could it be that you do not believe that Gods word is infallible. Also, could you please provide an example of how I am wrong? What I have posted here is based on Scripture. Show me how I was wrong.
Nothing wrong with my empathy, or perspective. The problem is your sinful pride, and your rejection of the greatest gift ever offered.
"Actually, you can't prove The bagivad gita, the Egyptian book of the dead, or the works of Scientology are works of fiction, but that doesn't mean they aren't."
Irrelevant. We are discussing The Bible here.
"The evidence against the Bible is in the various accounts of physically impossible events that are not reproducible and thus, warrant no merit."
Impossible? People used to think humans would never be able to fly. But not only have we flown the friendly skies, we have landed men on the moon. Now, I ask you. What reaction would you expect, if you traveled back in time 100 years, and told people we would land on the freakin' moon? They would say it's impossible. I think what you are really saying is that you think the possibility that God exists is impossible. By definition, God can do anything. Just like He did in the Bible. So, the events are not impossible. It is simply impossible for people like you to believe in a Being Who is greater then you. Worse yet, you find it impossible to admit that you are a sinner, and require Gods help to make it to Heaven. That's the real problem. Your sinful pride is getting in the way. Better change your attitude, before it's too late.
Actually, you are quite wrong. You cannot prove that any of the Bible is a work of fiction. There is absolutely no proof either way. The Bible has never been proven wrong about anything is says. Many have claimed that it has been, but it's just a lot of hot air.
I do not interpret what God tells me. I accept it. No interpretation required. The Bible's message is perfectly clear. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
What can be done about this? It's equally clear. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
That's all anyone really needs to know about Scripture.
Lucifer was the highest Angel in Heaven. Actually, he was an Archangel. He lived in the presence of God, for who knows how long. It was a part of his daily reality. And he STILL rebelled. Atheists are the same way. They KNOW God exists. They KNOW that they are sinners. They may not consciously recognize this, but it affects the way they think. The Bible tells us that no one will have any excuses on Judgement Day.
There are no such things as vestigial organs. Just like there is no junk DNA. These are lies, promoted by those who are trying to shore up a hopeless 'theory'. But since you asked, I'll answer one of those. The appendix plays an important role in digestion. If someone has a high fever, it can kill off the bacteria in their digestive tract. The appendix has a back-up supply of these bacteria, that is released once the fever has passed. There you go. You learned something new today.
I don't think, I know. Because Jesus said so. And He has never broken His word. I can't wait until I die. Not suicidal, but when I die, I'll be with my Lord and Savior. What do you atheists have to look forward to? Nothing. You think death is the end, but it is only the beginning. You poor fools.
LOL! Logged in, today, and saw a long list of replies down-voted. I still don't give a rats ass. You people are pathetic. Your votes do not affect me at all. But knock yourself out. Idiots.
Oh dear! This is just too funny!! Someone down-voted a dictionary definition! Oh, my poor abused ribs. I can't stop laughing! Priceless.
Definition of epithet
1
a : a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing
b : a disparaging or abusive word or phrase
c : the part of a taxonomic name identifying a subordinate unit within a genus
It doesn't matter what you think. I stand by what I posted. You can disagree all you want. Doesn't change a thing. I find it amusing that you, and others, are trying so hard to tell me what I really think. It's almost like you WANT me to be offended. Let me be clear about this. I'm laughing at you. That's how much it bothers me.
That reply made no sense at all. Would you care to try again? Try to make some sense this time.
It's called the DNA limit. You can only selectively breed up to a certain point. If you exceed that point, problems occur, because the species in question has lost too much genetic diversity. It is why certain breeds of dogs have some major health issues.
You are misusing the term species. A species normally refers to a kind, such as dogs or cats. Each of these have several subspecies that are different, but still cats and dogs. All subspecies of dogs can interbreed with each other, as well as their common ancestors, wolves. There are many different types of canines, but they are all canines. If you can show me an example of one kind evolving into another kind, I might take you seriously. But such a thing has never happened.
Viruses do not evolve. They incorporate new genes into their RNA, which is why we always need new flu vaccines. They do not evolve. They are still a flu virus, though slightly modified.
Vaccines are modified versions of whatever you are trying to prevent. They are inert, which allows our immune system to develop antibodies. This is not evolution. It is adaptation. Or, more precisely, our bodies doing what they were designed to do. Evolution has nothing to do with it.
Antibiotics. It is commonly believed that this is evolution in action. What really happens is that antibiotics kill most of the bacteria. A few survive. They do this because they have lost the ability to ingest and metabolize what killed the other bacteria. This is not evolution, since it involves the loss of an ability it once had.
Finally, what the hell does evolution have to do with drugs? That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Pharmacology involves chemistry. More precisely, chemistry as it relates to masking certain symptoms. BTW, drugs have never cured anything. They only treat the symptoms. So, how does that relate to evolution?
Evolution. The 'theory' that small changes lead to new species over time. It is a flawed theory that suggests that adaptation is responsible for creating new species. There is no scientific evidence to support this claim. It has never been witnessed, and all of science (real science) suggest that such a thing is impossible. There is no mechanism by which DNA can add new information to itself, which would be required for new species. Every species breeds after it's own kind. There is also the fact that breeding animals has proven that you can only select for certain traits up to a point. If you exceed that limit, problems occur. Read up on the DNA limit. You might learn something.
Which is probably why you down-voted me, instead of replying. Coward.
Which is probably why you down-voted me, instead of replying. Coward.
None of which have anything to do with evolution. Try again, spanky.
Wouldn't do any good. There are many respected scientists who don't believe in evolution. Look them up yourself. You would, if you were open minded, but you aren't.
That's because you are scientifically illiterate. ;) Or at least that's what the opposition always says to me. Basically, their argument is that YOU are stupid. Puhleease!
So, you're claiming that I do care, because I say that I don't care? What kind of twisted logic is that? Also, you are calling me a liar. I said I don't care. That is the truth, as I see it. You're opinion doesn't matter. Have a nice day.
The fact is that evolution has contributed nothing to science. Some claim that Biology rests on the theory, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Biology is a hard science, done in the lab. A biologist could do his job just fine without evolution. Tell me I'm wrong. You can't.
I don't have a science degree. But I can read and understand what other scientists say. And there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with evolution.
Not true. It is a scientific fact that objects that are heavier than air fall when dropped in a gravity well. There are many more observable facts.
Whether or not you agree with my methods, you cannot deny that getting rid of blacks would result in a massive reduction in crime. Tell me I'm wrong.
Bacteria do not evolve. The reason they become resistant is because they have lost the ability to ingest whatever worked on them before. So, it's actually devolution. They have, literally, lost the abilty to do something that they could do before. That is NOT evolution.
There is no scientific evidence that humans ever had tails. It's nothing but wild speculation. Period.
The universe cannot be explained without a Creator. Everything that happens requires a cause. What caused the universe to appear? It didn't create itself. That violates every bit of observational science in existence. The only explanation is that someone created it.
Are you talking about the myth that this proves that humans once had tails? For your information the coccyx is essential for our ability to remain upright. Take a look at how many muscles are attached to it, including the stomach muscles. Without it, we could not stand upright. You also wouldn't be able to take a shit without it.
I wasn't talking about you. I was addressing the topic. First degree, or premeditated is rare, but it requires planning. It also gives the person time to calm down and reconsider. I believe that these are responsible for the decline after executions occur. Most murders are committed during the commission of a crime. Not much you can do about that. But if someone is planning to kill someone else, they have time to think about the consequences. You cannot tell us that the death penalty has not dissuaded many of these people from following through.
I did not invoke God. I merely stated that many non religious scientists do not believe that the theory of evolution accounts for all observable data. And what are you still doing here? Bye.
OK, genius. How do you explain orphan genes? A theory must account for all observable data, or it is not valid. If one thing contradicts it, it is no longer a valid theory. So, explain orphan genes to us.
Correction. It's the view of the ATHEIST scientific community. There are many scientists who have a problem with it. In fact there is a petition that was signed by hundreds of scientists stating that they do not believe that the evidence supports evolution through gradual change. BTW, not all scientists who disagree are Christian, or even religious.
Every word I said is the truth, and easily verified. I notice that you didn't include any evidence for your wild claim.
And most of those fossil fuels came from plant life that was buried during the flood. The amount of crude oil found in reservoirs is inconstant with the number of dead critters that would have been required to have died and been buried. Keep in mind that fossil fuels are all underground. How did that many critters die in the same place, at the same time? Only a global flood can explain it.
The geologic column is a myth. It is based on a composite of many rock strata across the globe. The problem is that there is no uniformity of these layers. Certain species are even found in different rock layers, depending on what continent they were discovered on. In other words, they appear out of order. One species appearing before or after they supposedly existed. But you go right ahead and cling to you little myth.
