People refer to these verses because they are in the bible representing their God. Should they be ignored because they are in the OT? If so, why would they be in the bible in the first place? Why are some things in the OT acceptable to quote and other things are not? There's no good reason to disregard these verses. Saying Jesus instituted a new law or something should mean that you should throw out the OT if it doesn't line up with your views.
And yes I have seen many churches teach hateful practices as well as horrible things happen due to religion. There are priests molesting children to this day. There are bigoted statements against homosexuals and hateful protests with signs saying "God hates fags" and such. People practice strange rituals such as Opus Dei in order to cleanse themselves of their sins. Many churches oppress women and don't allow them to be priests or make them wear veils. There are definitely radical christians just like there are radical muslims. And what is the excuse? "Oh those aren't my type of Christianity."
I already established that you hate science. I pulled your own quotes in front of you. It's clear to everyone. I'm not the delusional one. I don't accept everything that says it is science, but I do accept evolution because there's good evidence for it. I haven't presented you with anything to refute god's existence at all. I was asking for you to present me with evidence for the bible. There's a big difference.
It's not that you reject evolution that bothers me. It's the reasons you reject it. If you made a clear case against it, I might engage you in a light debate. But all you have done thus far is spread your anger and contempt for science. You act like it's just a bunch of wild guesses and that I just accept every article at face value. I study this stuff in depth. I understand it a lot better than you do. There are good reasons behind every point and you have to know enough math and science to get that far. Since you don't understand it, you want to act like I'm the one believing things on a whim. Well guess what, it's the other way around. I can prove my arguments with facts. You cannot.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. You can't say animals shouldn't have rights because there are people who would abuse them and kill them uncontrollably. But if you give too many rights, then killing a spider would be punishable by death. I think there's a good case for animal rights as long as we plan on coexisting with them on this planet.
So Jesus only saves you if you read his book? I mean I've read it. It had a pretty good start, but I didn't like the ending much. And I don't remember Jesus going around telling people they were sons of the devil. He seems like a pretty nice guy. I think he says we are God's children and not the devil's.
What are you on this site for anyway? To tell people that you are saved and how much closer to god you are than them? I don't think you understand how to debate.
I don't think all Christians are anti-science, but there are definitely some who have a thorn in their side about it. There is definitely bad science out there and you do have to have a good understanding to spot it. However, evolution is not bad science. It has plenty of evidence to support it. I would be happy to discuss it because it is one of my favorite subjects. In fact it is probably my favorite scientific subject because it is so fascinating and beautiful. I look at this stuff all the time in my free time.
An orphan gene is typically classifies as a "De Novo" gene meaning "from nothing". It means that the gene of the offspring that isn't inherited from the parent. These genes could arise from several different causes, but typically are caused by a mutation in the parent's genes or the child's developing genes. These De Novo genes are hard to pin down because they usually just die off quickly and are never found again. They pop up in animals and even humans today. A De Novo mutation isn't necessarily an evolutionary advantage. In fact the ones we are aware of usually cause problems (one example is Dravet Syndrome). I don't know how much you know about biology, but mosaic mutations are quite common. A mosaic mutation is basically something that happens during development where large portions of your cells have genes that don't match the rest. Here is an article that talks about it and mentions a bit about De Novo genes.
Gene sequencing is not a perfect process. Most of the time we inherit everything from our parents, but every so often, something pops up like a hidden gene, a disorder, or a mutation. That's just part of nature. Sometimes it works out in your favor, sometimes it doesn't. Have you ever looked up savants? These are people with incredible abilities that aren't inherited from their parents. It is fascinating and you should check it out.
There is no over exaggeration on my part. It is very clear you don't understand both the scientific method and the theories you reject. You say I make baseless assertions that you reject what contradicts your worldview, yet you demonstrated it in both your last argument, and the one before. I don't need to prove that you don't understand it because it's easy for anyone to see.
This is you: "And this is where their stupidity approaches religion. Because they cannot explain it is False.
In ancient days should people have said, when they couldn't go to space, that other planets didn't exist?
Yes? Because they didn't have the means? and should conclude that there were no other planets."
"If there was a Big bang indeed all noses, eyes etc of most animals shouldn't all be on the face they should be scattered all over the body.I haven't come to space yet lol"
"(about lightbulbs) Do you know how many inventions have come up in ma head and their usefulness....it's usually ammunition based...... all i need is equipments etc."
You do not see the stupidity in these statements because you clearly don't understand the theories at all. You talk about it like a child.
Evolution and the big bang ARE science whether you want to say they are or not. They are NOT wild guesses. Anything that begins with a theory and has evidence supporting it is science. Some scientists do reject these theories, but the majority do not. Especially those that specialize in the fields that deal with these phenomenon. And the scientists who reject the theory wouldn't go so far to say it is not science. They just don't agree with the theory and come to a different conclusion.
I still call you a science hater because you pretend like it's a wild assertion until you say things like "Science is a baby growing its first tooth" or "Science does not have a means in its lab to explain any personal thing concerning God" or "I don't like science, i like logic... Don't care what the name is, science or sorcery". You show contempt and then question science as if it's an opposing religion. It's evident in your writing. You even go so far as to call scientists stupid. How is this not hatred for science?
When I say EVIDENCE I mean there are things you can literally explore and look at. There are fossils at museums. There is DNA which is the biggest form of evidence thus far. There are microevolutions and bacteria that evolve to resist antibiotics. The genetic codes of certain animals have way too much in common to be a coincidence. There's more than that too. It's literally overwhelming and pretty obvious. Those who reject it not only have to refute ALL of these pieces of evidence, but they need an alternate explanation that holds weight. You can't just call it BS and point to a bible quote. You have to provide an alternate theory. You clearly didn't look at any of this evidence up close. You think Darwin just had an idea and wrote a book. It's obvious by the way you talk about it.
I honestly don't think you really know why the Earth is round. When somebody asks you how you know, you quote the bible. You couldn't prove it otherwise. I hope you at least google it after reading this because you should know.
And you may be able to thrive better in a HUMAN environment than 500 zebras, but put your ass in the wild, and I bet those zebras outsmart you. You would be lunch dude.
I would have to disagree that science couldn't help you find God. It's just a method of trying to test something outside of yourself. Humans are prone to error in their thinking, assumption, and even their own senses. That's why I trust in science. It has proven itself to be a very trustworthy method and we must give credit where credit is due. It is responsible for all of the marvels of mankind that you see around you. If it weren't for science, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Lightbulbs, LED's, Computers, airplanes, batteries, climate prediction, medicine, crime investigation, heating, air conditioning, electricity, and so on. All of these things are the result of people using science. It works.
If God is in fact real, I believe he wouldn't intentionally deceive anyone using his creations. In fact, science should be something that works in favor of God. If you go looking for him in nature, he would show up.
It wouldn't bother me to find that God was real. In fact, it would make life a lot simpler because there would be a guide on how to live your life and you would have all of the tools to guarantee an eternity of happiness. But without a god, life is more complicated. Nothing is really clear as far as purpose or morality goes. But would it upset you to find out that there isn't a god? I believe that those who accept god tend to do so because it is more comfortable than facing a reality without one. I can't speak for everyone, but personally, it doesn't bother me either way. I would honestly like to have a good understanding of reality and the truth. So if the truth is that God exists, I would welcome it with open arms. But so far on my journey, I haven't found it to be convincing. But I am by no means finished searching. Plus you have given me a few things to keep my search preoccupied in the meantime.
Mmmmmmmmm Sausage......
It looks like you are a self proclaimed Saint already. I would advise you show a little humility instead of going around acting like you are already saved.
I've got one thing to say to you. WWJD? Hint: He probably wouldn't be calling people stupid and condemning them to Hell.
I took a gander at that article about the 3 reasons to read the bible. I have never heard of these prophesies before, but I still find myself a bit skeptical of them. Although Ezekiel apparently predicted the Fall of Tyre, I feel like the description was a bit vague. Also, the prophecy in the bible reads as one event. Nebuchadnezzar is supposed to be the one to bring down the city. Instead, Alexander the Great tears it down years later. Even if the events were similar as to what is described in the bible, the wrong person was predicted to bring down the kingdom. I usually don't like to entertain prophecy for this reason. They are too open to interpretation and aren't very clear.
However, the other parts of the article were very intriguing. I've never heard of a discussion of the medical practices used in the bible in comparison to other practices of the time. This makes a very interesting case. I am not very keen on medical practice and couldn't confirm this myself, but I do know people in the medical field and will definitely bring this up. This type of thing seems like it would hold more water as an argument since we can verify the practices with medical science today.
I am also very intrigued with the references to the archaeological findings such as Pilate's Inscription. This may not confirm the bible is written by god, but it would give credibility to the accuracy of the gospels.
The author says that so far there haven't been any findings that contradict the bible, but I can attest to a few that do. The Shroud of Turin which was historically supposed to be the cloth that Jesus wiped his face with, yet it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Also, there are quite a few claims to people having relics from events in the bible such as the nails used to crucify Jesus or the crown of thorns. As far as I know, all of these accounts have been found to be false.
But THIS is what I like to see. I am actually pretty impressed that someone actually provided hard evidence in favor of the bible's account. This gives me something to actually research and investigate. We can actually have an intelligent discussion based in real findings which is much more entertaining than a back and forth about how science is all a lie or something.
Ill take a look at it, but Ill tell you right now I am not often impressed when it comes to prophecy. I know Bronto throws a few my way every so often. I am much more intrigued by evidence. Like if they actually found remnants of Noah's ark or something like that.
There's good evidence on the crucifixion of Peter although its hard to confirm it was upside down. Most other apostles were crucified yet some were stabbed, stoned, or beaten. I actually do find this really interesting because it would be difficult to argue that someone would give their life for a cause they know is a lie.
You have a very poor understanding of what science is. It isn't just curious people discovering things. There's a very specific method that you need to follow. The most important part of that method is the experiment. You come up with a theory, you do an experiment to test the theory, and you see if it was right or not. You can't just stumble upon an idea and call yourself a scientist. You need to have an understanding of how the world around you operates. You do not have this understanding. That is why I asked you those questions.
I don't call you a science hater because I want to win an argument. I call you a science hater because you favor religion over science. There is no way to convince you otherwise. Your mind is made up about anything that contradicts your world view. That is why you can look at something like evolution or the big bang and easily dismiss it without even understanding the argument. These are not wild guesses. You just cannot comprehend all of the work that went on behind it.
You can't just say evolution is nonsense to me and I don't see it as a part of science. You don't get to choose what is a part of science. Evolution has years of study behind it and has evidence in the real world to back it up. But someone who favors religion doesn't take a close look at the evidence. Instead, they reject it immediately, look at what their bible says, and then try to show that it's a fraud or something without any good question.
The big bang isn't just some idea to cut god out. There was a lot of analysis and study that went behind this theory. It is definitely vague, but based on what is actually out there to look at, it is literally the best guess we have. Scientists don't say nothing came before the big bang, they just don't care to discuss something they have no way of analyzing at this time.
You can't look to the bible for answers about the real world. The bible didn't predict the world was round or that airplanes would fly in the sky. If you asked people before they knew the world was round, they would've killed you and quoted your bible. The whole point of asking you those questions is that we literally have a real world answer because of science. NOT THE BIBLE. The bible didn't invent shit. People who study and understand the world invented those things. Giving credit to the bible just exposes your delusional thinking.
Religious people do hate science today. They hate it because they can't use it to confirm their beliefs. There might be some small theory in science they like and they will use that, but if another one messes with their head, they get angry and refute it. The idea that we evolved from apes pisses you off because you like the idea that God made you special. If it is true, you are pretty much the same as all the other animals on Earth. Your religion makes you arrogant and self important.
Perhaps some famous scientists grew up religious. Times used to be simpler. Pretty much everyone was religious during earlier times just like pretty much everyone was a little racist.
You answered my question by saying God is omnipresent. I call BS. If he's everywhere, show me anything that points to that being true. But don't quote the bible because that doesn't prove anything.
If you wanted evidence that I'm not an experiment I could literally prove it. It wouldn't even be difficult. I could make a CD for you too (whatever the heck that means).
I made this debate because I honestly would like to know why I should take the bible seriously. But insulting science and saying theories are stupid and then throwing bible quotes at me does nothing. I don't think you can show anybody why they should believe the bible is true. So if you do have a good reason, give it to me instead of trying to make this debate about your insecurities with science.
