CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The Bible: Truth or Fiction?
How can we verify that the bible is a credible source? Is there any evidence confirming that God is behind it? Whenever somebody throws a bible quote in a debate, why should we acknowledge it?
Making a Case for the Bible ........ The Bible is under attack! We live in an age when the very idea of clear, objective, knowable truth is being assaulted—even from within the visible church ... A growing number of pastors claim it’s impossible to know exactly what Scripture means by what it says .... They say the Bible is simply not clear—rather, it’s filled with mystery and ambiguity .... Does that mean every doctrine you and I find precious is subject to new interpretation, doubt, and even wholesale rejection? .. Is the Bible really infallible and inerrant? Can we really know what God’s Word means? .... In Making a Case for the Bible, John MacArthur makes the case that God’s truth hasn’t changed. It isn’t mysterious or veiled—He revealed it with sufficient clarity .... This study will help you know why you believe what you believe, and instill in you a deeper confidence in the truth of God as revealed in His Word ........... gty.org
I'm being called a heratic by someone who thinks the Adam and Eve story isn't told in an allegorical way, yet has no rebuttle on the verses of Ezekiel where Assyria is the highest tree in the Garden of Eden. It, Assyria had long branches with birds lighting in them as the nations basked in its shade... Is Assyria a literal tree? Of course not. Off ya go.
Still no rebuttal because you have no rebuttal. That is a fool proof way to know that you were wrong... again... and the fact that you were wrong shows that you really don't know the word of God, which makes you a liar and a hypocrite. Whether I "go to hell" is irrelevant. I can use your arguments to show that you are going to hell per your own words. That's why we were commanded not to judge. Your words will condemn you, and your words say "unless you are holy" (which you are not), you will burn in hell".
You've already blasphemed the holy ghost Saint. Sorry to bring the bad news. You are going to burn in hell like a bald head on a sunny day. I didn't want you to become a Holiness Pentacostal demon heratic.... but...
You are a heretic who will not listen to reason and I must obey the word of God.
Titus 3:10-11:....A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
You can reject someone and still witness to them. You are now saying Jesus addressing those whom he rejected is a sin. You are a heretic by your own admission. I think that may very well be blasphemy of the holy ghost Saint. Wheeeeeeeew........
It is a fact that there is more document evidence for the New Testament than for any other ancient writings. It consists of eyewitness accounts. You can believe that those accounts are not factual, but the fact remains that they exist. There is also the fact that several of the Apostles died rather than deny that Christ rose from the dead. Now, I ask you. Who would die for something they knew was a lie? The Bible is the word of God. Believe it.
This is actually the best case for the bible I have ever heard. I have never considered why the Martyrs have died before. I will have to look into that.
All of the disciples but one were crucified. Peter was hung upside down from a cross. And John, the one who wasn't crucified, spent the rest of his life in prison.
Notice that even with Christians being slaughtered like animals in Colliseums the religion grew.
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.
And when you add Biblical prophecy to it, the case is rock solid. :) Check this out. This is about the prophecy of the city of Tyre and it's destruction. It makes 6 specific predictions, including exact dates. No one could make a prediction like this and have it come true. Only God could do that.
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.
But science will not help you find God. Would it upset you to find out that God is real and that you are a sinner. I believe that those who reject God do so because of pride. They are too proud to humble themselves before God and ask forgiveness. I hope you aren't one of those. Anyway, I wish you luck in your search, and I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Meanwhile, here is something you might want to peruse.
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.
"I believe that those who accept god tend to do so because it is more comfortable than facing a reality without one."
I beg to differ. Believing in God is simple, but it is not easy. It involves a denial of self. It demands that we put God first in everything we do. There is comfort in knowing that if we obey God He will look after us, but temptation is everywhere. Trust me. It is not easy or comforting. If someone finds Gods word comforting, they are missing something. Gods word is meant to convict us. It reveals the hard truths that we must face if we are to walk with God. Maybe that's why so many reject it.
That might be true, but that's because the other crucified apostles not mentioned in the Bible hadn't been killed yet when those books were written. It's also why the destruction of the temple wasn't documented in scripture because that event just hadn't happened yet. Why not include one of the biggest events in that time period in your writings? It's because it was still standing when they wrote it. Also just a side note, this helps support the claim that scripture wasn't changed or rewritten decades later. And I also don't think God wrote the Bible. That's obvious. People wrote the Bible, but that doesn't take it's significance away.
Peter and Paul were both martyred in Rome about 66 AD, during the persecution under Emperor Nero. Paul was beheaded. Peter was crucified, upside down at his request, since he did not feel he was worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord.
ANDREW went to the "land of the man-eaters," in what is now the Soviet Union. Christians there claim him as the first to bring the gospel to their land. He also preached in Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey, and in Greece, where he is said to have been crucified.
"Doubting" THOMAS was probably most active in the area east of Syria. Tradition has him preaching as far east as India, where the ancient Marthoma Christians revere him as their founder. They claim that he died there when pierced through with the spears of four soldiers.
PHILIP possibly had a powerful ministry in Carthage in North Africa and then in Asia Minor, where he converted the wife of a Roman proconsul. In retaliation the proconsul had Philip arrested and cruelly put to death.
MATTHEW the tax collector and writer of a Gospel, ministered in Persia and Ethiopia. Some of the oldest reports say he was not martyred, while others say he was stabbed to death in Ethiopia.
BARTHOLOMEW had widespread missionary travels attributed to him by tradition: to India with Thomas, back to Armenia, and also to Ethiopia and Southern Arabia. There are various accounts of how he met his death as a martyr for the gospel.
JAMES the son of Alpheus, is one of at least three James referred to in the New Testament. There is some confusion as to which is which, but this James is reckoned to have ministered in Syria. The Jewish historian Josephus reported that he was stoned and then clubbed to death.
SIMON THE ZEALOT, so the story goes, ministered in Persia and was killed after refusing to sacrifice to the sun god.
MATTHIAS was the apostle chosen to replace Judas. Tradition sends him to Syria with Andrew and to death by burning.
JOHN is the only one of the company generally thought to have died a natural death from old age. He was the leader of the church in the Ephesus area and is said to have taken care of Mary the mother of Jesus in his home. During Domitian's persecution in the middle 90's, he was exiled to the island of Patmos. There he is credited with writing the last book of the New Testament--the Revelation. An early Latin tradition has him escaping unhurt after being cast into boiling oil at Rome.
This may sound rough, but you need a wake up call......
Just wait until the whole word, both rich and poor, small and great, free and bond.....all are forced to take a mark on their right hand or on their forehead or they are unable to buy anything anywhere....and wait until the man of perdition, the Anti-Christ, sits in Israel proclaiming himself to be God and forcing all to worship him...wait until the whole world gathers in battle over Israel, then ask if the Bible is the word of God.
Also, if you want to wait until you find yourself unable to get out of the fire of Hell, you can at that time also ask if the Bible is the word of God.
Because those who knew him face to face were cowards according to their own stories about themselves and each other. After they claimed he was risen from the dead, they grew balls of steel and dared people to try to kill them.
You should probably figure it out. If the bible isn't from god, then it might be just a story book. Plus if the bible isn't from god, then you shouldn't be following it so religiously.
So you look forward to being in Hell frying like an eternal sausage? You won't see me there, and if you continue talking so stupid, refusing to repent of your sins and believe on the Savior who died for you to save you from Hell, you will in that fire say things like "I am so stupid".
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.
Obviously you have not read the Bible so you don't know what Jesus would do. If you read the Bible you will see Jesus boldly naming people's sins and telling them that they are children of Hell of their father the devil.
Jesus died for my sins, He is God who paid for my sins with His blood so He can consider my debt paid in full and by Him in His resurrection I am forgiven of causing Him to have to die in my place to buy me back from the penalty of sin which is eternal condemnation in the fire of Hell.
I would advise you to read the Bible and not stop until you are sure you are saved, because your proclamation that you think I am not saved only shows that you are not saved....you should learn to speak for yourself. By your own words you say you are not saved, so I say you are not saved and that means you are condemned under penalty of sin which is Hell. You need to get saved, and be forgiven and not condemned. You should not stop seeking God until you are sure you are totally forgiven and saved. I hope you care enough about yourself to seek God's salvation and not stop seeking until you are sure you have it.
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.
The devil reads the Bible. You can read the Bible until you are blue in the face and wake up in Hell. Try to use your brain.
I don't believe you read the Bible at all. If you did read it, it was so long ago that you forgot or you were too high on dope or something to comprehend what you were reading. If you want some education to prevent yourself from sounding so ignorant when you talk about what Jesus did or did not do or say, I will show you in the Bible where Jesus did indeed confront people in his daily events and called them children of Hell, and of their father the devil. He called His enemies many other names in exact accordance to their sins and their attitudes. You think you are a child of God when in reality you are of your father the devil as you stand. To be a child of God, you must be born again....another famous saying of Jesus which I guess you missed in your intoxication or forgot.
You don't like the ending of the Bible? You don't like how God allows the evil forces of the world to nearly destroy the whole world before God Himself stops them and changes the world forever so evil is separated in the fire of Hell and there is no more pain, sickness, sorrow, or dying for those who love God? If you don't like the way it's going to end, that's just too bad for you, isn't it; you will be with the evil in the lake of fire which is the second death if you keep on in your attitude against the Savior.
Good for you that you recognize the fact that I am not debating. You want to argue against the truth, I present the truth. Debate against the truth until you are blue in the face if you want to. Enjoy your debating all you can as long as you can. Time is running out.
God brought you across my path because you are lost and need to be saved. God will save you if you will agree with Him and trust Him to save you. God brought me here. He may take me away from here at any moment and no matter what happens it all turns out good for me according to the promises of God. Whether you listen or not, you will give account to God for everything you say, think, and do. You will be held responsible for your attitudes and reactions here, you will appear in judgement at the throne of God and everything you have ever said, thought, or done will be open for all to see and you will be judged. Believe it or not. You can't win fighting against the truth.
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.
Regarding your last sentence, Christians are not anti-science. We are simply against bad science. I am a firm believer in the scientific method which was actually introduced by Christians, BTW. Evolution does not meet the requirements of true science. There are no experiments that can be done, since it happened in the past. And what about orphan genes? 10-30 percent of all DNA have no precursors, which means they didn't evolve. They simply appeared out of nowhere. I love debating this. Even if it appears that I lost the argument, I learn something new.
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.
The New Testament was constructed/written by the Emperor Constantine who cobbled together a bunch of relics and rumors from camel jockeys and mystics who believed in "miracles" and myths. Some were tiring of Neptune, Hercules, Mercury and a bunch of other "gods" that never showed up. This new guy has stuck around for centuries, like THEY did, and never showed up either! Will humans EVER learn?? WE, have to control our destiny! The politician that, last week, said that "GOD will take care of climate change." (paraphrasing), shouldn't be in office! (Most of those above him should not be either!)
The NT books predate Constantine by a long time. Your claim is also refuted by the many writings of nonChristians about Jesus from the first century and pre Constantine. Constantine wrote none of the NT.
Again, you don't read well. I did NOT say he wrote anything. He gathered together a bunch of myths and scrolls, etc. and made a book out of them. Of course they existed long before him, that's what myths ARE! You have refuted NONE of my claim. He was the EDITOR of the NT and "GOD" was NOT the author!
Oh, I DID say "written". I used an incorrect term, but, like Trump says, you can't take my words literally, you have to consider the MEANING. Consider this like a "Presidential tweet". ;-)
You are confusing Constantine with the Council of Nicea. They put the Christian gospels and letters together. Even still today they are referred to as individual "books" and letters.
Example: "The book of John", "The book of Revelation", "Paul's letter to the Ephesians", etc.
The New Testament was constructed/written by the Emperor Constantine who cobbled together a bunch of relics and rumors from camel jockeys and mystics who believed in "miracles" and myths
He gathered together a bunch of myths and scrolls, etc. and made a book out of them
False. The books stand alone and were used by Christians long before Constantine ever existed. Even Josephus (a Jew who was not a Christian) meantions Christians by name and refers to their doctrine in "The Antiquities of the Jews".
I find the argument that Constantine wrote and constructed the NT to be extremely far fetched and unsupported.
Prophecy is a sure sign that the Bible is God's revelation. It is most reasonable to believe every canonized NT book was written before A.D. 70 for any number of reasons. The most obvious reason is the promised coming Messiah in fulfillment of OT prophecy. He was prophesied to come to an OT people. Thus, the audience of address focuses on an OT people, and the fulfillment of prophecy is directed at them, of which the destruction of Jerusalem plays a key role in their covenant relationship with God. There is not ONE mention in the entire NT of an already destroyed temple. The significance of this is that the whole OT community builds around their relationship to God which centered itself around temple worship. The Law that was necessary to meet the obligation of the OT covenant in atoning for their sins could not be fulfilled after A.D. 70. It required animal sacrifice to atone for sin, a priesthood, and a temple. It also expected a Messiah to come to an OT people, to rescue some and judge others. His coming cannot find fulfillment after A.D. 70 since the covenant no longer exists - no more animal sacrifices, or priesthood to represent the people before God, or a temple.
The entire Mosaic Old Covenant is based upon an if/then relationship with God. If the people obeyed His commands and decrees, they would be blessed by God. If they did not, they would be cursed by God. Deuteronomy 28 lays out these blessings and curses. The Old Covenant people failed to live by the covenant they agreed to (Exodus 24:3). He sent them prophets and teachers to warn them of the curses of breaking the covenant. They refused to turn back, killing His prophets. He sends His Son as a final warning to them (Hebrews 1:1-2). They refuse to repent and turn back to Him, crucifying the Son, so He abolishes the covenant in a judgment of them, and in the process created a new and better covenant.
Everything prophesied to these OT people is fulfilled in the time-frame of A.D. 70. The unity and accomplishment of all God said in hundreds of yet unfulfilled prophecy came to pass by A.D. 70. This fulfillment can be adequately demonstrated. Thus, it is most reasonable to believe the Bible is His revelation and it was not written or edited by Constantine centuries later.
I appreciate your belief. However, they are based on the book you are trying to defend. I defend YOUR right to believe what you wish.
Mine come from thinking "outside the box" as they say. From my own observances and from a friend that studied for the clergy. He was well into his studies but was often asking questions that he had trouble getting answers for that, also, didn't come from "the Book". Things just didn't ring true to him. He was eventually asked to stop asking them in class, or outside of class, and eventually asked to leave the university. I find it easier to follow HIS documented facts than the "dictated facts" of one religion. I also don't agree with the WE are the only "right" ones with the ONLY "right God" ... because our no-show author says it is so. I don't like, never have liked, being inside a "box" and being told what to think.
Obviously, my friend didn't join the clergy. He became quite successful outside the box.
And I defend your right to believe even though I believe your belief is wrong/false. Logically, with two opposing beliefs at least one of them is false.
As for my belief, I believe I can adequately and logically justify it. I do not believe you can your belief. Let me explain why. If a belief is true then it would be exclusively true because all opposing beliefs would be contradictory. They would say things that are inconsistent with reality and when examined unravel.
If you would like to state your belief I will attempt to take it apart to get to its core, what everything else rests upon. You can try and do the same with mine for I am fully convinced it has what is necessary and it is logical and consistent.
Whether you LIKE being put inside a box or not your beliefs would fit within a box for them to be true. Again, let me explain. The Law of Contradiction, a necessary law of logic, states that A is not non-A.
So I will develop that thought.
A is a specific thing. A is in a specific box. Everything that is non-A is outside that box. Now lets give "A" value. A = dog. Dogs fit inside the box for dogs. Everything else that is non-A (not a dog) does not. A cat does not fit into the classification of "A." A tulip, a tree, a human, a rock, etc., etc., do not fit in the box. Everything in the world and universe that is not a dog does not fit into the "A" box. Once you lose the distinction of "A" it can mean anything. It loses its identity. It loses its value.
Christianity fits very specifically into a box. There is one God. This God is three distinct Person's. This God is personal. This God is the only God. This God is true. This God has revealed Himself to humanity in the form of the Bible. This God created everything that exists in the universe. This God is almighty. No one is mightier than He is. This God is omnipresent. This God is benevolent. This God is just. This God is eternal. This God is unchanging in His nature, thus consistent....and the list goes on. So, when you try to put something in the God box that is incompatible with His godly attributes you are no longer speaking of the same God, the God I am speaking of.
If you say there are many gods, you no longer fit the definition of the Christian God. You are NOT speaking of the same God. When you say God is not personal, you are not speaking of the same God. When you are saying there is no God, you are no longer speaking of this Being. It does not fit the Christian God box.
If you want to dispute the Christian God you are welcome to do so. I will gladly defend Him, although He needs no defending because whether you choose to believe in Him or not does not deny His existence. But I can give you most logical and consistent evidence that He exists - His word in the form of prophecy coupled with history. I believe you will not be able to REASONABLY justify the consistency of your view with the evidence we have available, if you wish to dispute the Christian revelation.
Are you game?
Also, if you want to tell me something of your belief I will TRY to show you the inconsistencies of what you believe in as much as I am able. All worldviews (the way we look at the world) start with core principles that everything else rests upon. You either start with God as the answer, or no god. You start with mindful intentional being or chaotic unintentionality non-being. I will try to get to the nuts and bolts of what your worldview rests upon, if you are willing.
I will also be willing to examine your friends "facts" and test them against contradiction and inconsistency. If you want to explain what he now believes I will set about doing this. He sounds like he is every inclusive on outward appearance. Let's see if this inclusivity makes sense.
As for my God being a "no-show," you are sadly mistaken. His word to you confirms who He is and what He says is true. I can demonstrate the reasonableness of this with prophecy, also the Bibles internal unity and focus, its authority and its sensibility.
To start (and if you are willing) I will ask you what is your ultimate authority in understanding truth?
I think that it's a book that is capable of both. There are some stories in there that seem a bit more .....dramatized for the story, but there is also history, lessons and culture.
Whatever anyone says, it's impossible to know for sure and we are all biased.
However, the Bible is not just a book; it's a collection of writings by many different authors at different times. Some of the original books of the Bible have been taken out and while some are present in the Apocrypha, some have been lost altogether.
You can take from that what you will.
A lot of Christians believe that the Bible is essentially truth at its "kernel", but its "husk" is the fiction which surrounds it. For example, its many allegories and parables.
And of course anybody who wasn't a Christian would reject the claim that the Bible was absolute truth from God.
It is just a book. The bible was written by people. It is a book filled with contradictions, logical fallacies and claims with no proof to support them.
If you say:
The bible is God's word.
Why?
Because it is written by God.
And how do you know that?
Because the bible says so.
That is ignorant, illogical and completely unreasonable.
None whatsoever. There is more evidence that Romeo and Juliet was written by Edward de Vere than there is of a God. In fact, there is more evidence that my arsecrack can conjure thunderstorms than there is evidence of god.
Showing science that you don't understand doesn't say anything about God. Classic "God of the Gaps" argument. If science can't explain it, it must be God. FALSE.
How about "show me evidence that isn't the bible" or "why should I believe in the Christian god instead of the Hindu, greek, egyptian, pagan, or norse gods?"
Nobody converts because they think god is mean. They stop believing for the same reasons they stop believing in the tooth fairy.
I'm not quite sure why theists assume that an atheist doesn't believe in god because he just thinks he's mean. It's much more the idea that he isn't present that concerns us.
The main idea of God is that he is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
So in order to prove god exists, you need to prove he's everywhere, all powerful, and totally good.
The 3 ways questions you are going to here from an atheist are "Where is god?", "Why doesn't he "fill in the blank" if he's all powerful?", and "Why does he do immoral things?". An atheist is more likely concerned with the omnipresent part than the all good part. Who cares if the biblical god is good or evil if he isn't even present?
Bronto-fap-tor, you don't know HOW to debate. You're a brainwashed simpleton who doesn't even understand the premises of informal logic. You have NO authority.
The Egyptians gods disappeared into oblivion. Now Egypt is Islamic. Hint hint...
They used the same crescent moon symbol, as did the Roman gods. The Bible even points it out in the scene at the temple of Artemis. Jesus even referred to the temple of Zeus as the throne of Satan in the book of Revelation. Same cresecent moon blah blah blah. It's why I created my site.
The Roman gods are based on the Greek gods. So of course they will have things in common. And they literally have a goddess of the moon. So a crescent moon symbol isn't a big surprise.
The symbol of Islam has a star next to the crescent. This star also appears in greek mythology, Roman mythology, the pentagram of satan, egyptian heiroglyphics, wicca, astrology, etc. It even appears in Christianity and Judaism. The star of David, star of Bethlehem, the 12 stars in the scriptures, the crown around mary's head, and so on. In fact, it appears as a symbol in many of the flags of different countries.
Why do you focus on the crescent symbol and not the star? Oh and isn't Satan's number 6? So why does the star of David have 6 points? Why are Yahweh and Yeshua spelled with 6 letters? If you look at the Ichthys (fish symbol of christianity) It is eerily similar to a 6. God made the world in 6 days. The world is 6,000 years old according to the geneology in the bible. 6+6=12 and there are 12 apostles and 12 sons of Jacob.
I could go on if I wanted to because you can find common symbols anywhere all the time. Religions use them a lot. There is no inherent meaning or secret conspiracy. You are drawing conclusions based on a shape people saw while looking at a partially shaded sphere.
I could be drawing conclusions the same as you. That's what people do. We look at clouds and see shapes all the time. It doesn't mean anything.
You are drawing conclusions based on a shape people saw while looking at a partially shaded sphere
No. They have the same concepulizations and practices as well. The symbol is a minor point. It simply shows that they do not avert from the common symbol. The practices are what binds them together.
When ancient civilizations looked up at the moon, that is the shape that they saw. That is the symbol for the moon. And it definitely resembles the shape you see when you look at a crescent moon.
It's a MOON. Witches use the moon in their practice. Hinduism has a goddess of the moon. The muslims got the symbol from the Byzantium period which was originally worshipping a MOON goddess. Everybody can see the moon. Of course they came up with that same shape. Cmon man.
In fact if you talk to a muslim, they don't even really regard that symbol as a representation of their religion. They consider it idolatry just like depicting an image of god. They use the moon as a calendar for festivals and to represent their obedience to their nation. That is about it. It isn't like the cross of christianity. In fact, the cross is a symbol that is used throughout all different religions too.
I am just going to keep repeating myself. The bible means nothing to me. It doesn't prove anything. It was written after all of these symbols popped up anyways. If you want to use the bible in your arguments, you first have to make a case where it is a credible source. Every bible quote you have thrown my way does nothing for your argument.
Every bible quote you have thrown my way does nothing for your argument
My site goes over why the Bible's claims and prophecies matter. I created the site, so that I don't have to keep re-presenting the same 10 hours worth of material argument over and over.
I know. The Bible is clear on the worship of the moon. Don't do it. It's Satan's symbol. Magically... it still is even after the Egyptian, Greek, Roman gods, Baal, etc vanished from memory. Isn't that a daisy? Jesus warned that the beast was, is not, and then would be again in the end. He then warns us of Jezebel in Revelation, which is Baal worship. Odd. "Baal worship" was gone during his day. Now witchcraft, Satanism, Hinduism, Islam, etc have brought its symbol and its blood sacrifices all back. Must just be a coincidence. I'd ignore it...
Ok fair enough. I guess the better equivalent would be Santa Claus. We know a St. Nicolas lived, but the whole flying in the sky with reindeer and jumping into chimneys is a bit iffy.
Perhaps, but what you cannot say is that Saint Nick did not exist in history. You cannot say that about the Easter bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc. It's a false equivalency.
It's also a false equivalency in that Santa Claus is told as a fictional account. The disciples told the story of Jesus as a literal account.
All I can do is provide you the info. If you don't go through it, then if you are wrong, it would be a poor choice. If you are right, it won't matter in a hundred years, so why act like it matters now... end of story.
Perhaps. Now ask yourself, if a child was dying and said to you, "I'm about to go to Heaven." would you "save them from their own lies" or no? Why or why not?
I wouldn't for the same reason I wouldn't ruin Christmas for the child. If someone wants a happy thought when they die I won't deny them that. But if they want the honest truth, i won't deny them that either
1)You are welcome to show a real crescent moon vs the other moons.
2)You are welcme to share with us who Baal zebub is in the Old Testament or New Testament. You are then welcome to show us the symbol of Baal. I'll wait.
Baal was just an old word for "Lord". The ancient god was worshipped for fertility. The moon is often used as a symbol for a woman's womb so it's naturally the symbol for a god of fertility in ancient customs. The Israelites rejected the worship of this god in the OT and it carried over to Christian bible thumpers because of it. But it's not the devil. Just another false god. A simple google search took care of that question.
And I am not going to sit around pulling out pictures of crescents for you. They obviously all represent the moon. The moon makes a crescent. I don't need to pull a picture out. You can just look at the moon.
The source for the name Beelzebub is in 2 Kings 1:2-3, 6, 16. Ba‘al Zəbûb is variously understood to mean "lord of the flies"[1][2][3][4] or "lord of the (heavenly) dwelling".[5][6][7] Originally the name of a Philistine god,[8] Ba'al, meaning "Lord" in Ugaritic, was used in conjunction with a descriptive name of a specific god. The Septuagint renders the name as Baalzebub (βααλζεβούβ) and as Baal muian (βααλ μυιαν, "Baal of flies"), but Symmachus the Ebionite may have reflected a tradition of its offensive ancient name when he rendered it as Beelzeboul.[9]
And then Jesus, a Jew, addresses the Pharisees, Jewish Priests, and they both agree that it has to do with Satan.
Ok so the first wiki source you added leads back to my source. The Beezelbub source and quote both point out that Baal literally means Lord. Its right there in the statement you put down. Baal Muian "Lord of the Flies". The bible quotes you pull mention Beelzebul and NOT Baal. It's not the same name. Baal is a pagan word for Lord. Modern day Christians even call their own god Lord. If we had lived back then, we would've said Baal.
Baal (/ˈbeɪl/ BAYL; sometimes spelled Bael, Baël (French), Baell) is in 17th century goetic occult writings one of the seven princes of Hell. The name is drawn from the Canaanite deity Baal mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as the primary god of the Phoenicians.
In this unholy hierarchy, Baal (usually spelt "Bael" in this context; there is a possibility that the two figures aren't connected) was ranked as the first and principal king in Hell, ruling over the East. According to some authors Baal is a Duke, with sixty-six legions of demons under his command.
Lol are you serious? Jesus Christ was a follower of the Jewish faith and a descendent of David. That star represents God, the Torah, and Israel coming together. Are you serious? You are too deep in the rabbit hole man.
Are other people seeing this? Can somebody back me up?
I never mentioned the star as a bad thing. Judaism and Christianity being similar is meaningless to me. The Jews are God's people. Jesus was a Jew. If Satanism(a modern phenomenon) took the star as a mock, it means nothing to me except that Satan is mocking God.
There are so many things science cannot explain till today and these are even common and basic happenings of life.
What about outer space, how far has science explored. Science hasn't finished exploring creation and stil will never be complete even in 10000 Years to come yet you want to discover the creator himself scientifically? Does that make sense to you. You haven't written your class test in kindergarten but you are requesting a doctrate degree...
Science can never discover God. It is own their common sense that should tell them there is God. God out of his own will offers a relationship with his creation through what is classifief as religion. And when He acts,and scientists hear of it, they shouldn't try understand or explain it. It is extremely far and beyond their ability of explaination.
Science does not have means in its lab. to explain any personal thing concerning God.
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.
The bible predicted the earth hangs on nothing....(don't talk about gravity, no one wakes up to see gravity though there is an amount here).
Science is like a baby experiencing the early stages of a growing tooth and therefore has the edge to bite things, the baby tried biting Goliath(God, Christianity, Religion) but since Goliath made no reactions the baby declares Goliath a statue(myth, fiction).
Science should explain how a parent senses his/her child in danger though they maybe in different countries or towns.
or is that too a myth?
In the year 2000 fishes rained from the sky in Ethiopia science should explain that.
ow and also in australia
Body hair: fine hair on the body and thick hair on the genitals is the opposite of what occurs in primates, our close animal relatives. Suggested reasons for pubic hair include a role in radiating scent, providing warmth or even protecting from chafing.
Why do cows always face only north and south when grazing?
Current Science is just too lame to stand up to the complex yet again simple things of this world.
You brought up a lot of points. Most of those are scientific points themselves. You wouldn't be talking about them if it weren't for science. Science doesn't have any dogma. It isn't a religion or worldview. Scientists don't care if their theories are proven wrong. It changes over time. Religion on the other hand has laws. It needs to be right or else it doesn't make sense. If God existed and there was evidence of it, you could use science to show it. It could work for you. But religious people hate science. It exposes their fallacies and lies. The truth hurts.
Most of the things you brought up to counter science are discovered by science. It's like you try to use it when it favors your point of view, but try to refute it when it doesn't. Its entertaining. How do you think we know the world is round? Where did lightbulbs come from? How about airplanes? That pubic hair thing you brought up is science. The cows facing a certain direction is science. You should actually look that one up. It's pretty fascinating. They figured it out.
It's not that religion is so complex that science can't hold its weight. It's that there's nothing to show that religion is true. Where is this god? Why doesn't he do any miracles today? Show me anything that is evidence of a god. Oh you can't? Why should I believe you then? Oh because it's beyond my comprehension? Give me a break.
There is nothing special about science. Science is just me and you ,and the other things that live around us. Giving attention to these things is just science nothing else. Anything i mention was discovered by the curiousity of scientists but wasn't invented by science...it just gives names to things that already exist. It combines some and separates some out of curiousity. There are so many things people see and ignore but only a curious science man will give attention to it, study it, name it and shout it out loud to the public, is that what you call special about science?
I have a friend who could repair things (that is after his dad had tried for several hours and failed) he had no academic knowledge about when we were kids.
So now he is doing mechanical engineering at the university.
Science is mere curiousity. And just because you're curious about something way bigger than you, you don't conclude it doesn't exist.
Anyone who says that is a very useless scientist. And coincidentally all useful scientists like einstein, newton, kelvin etc. never denied the existence of God.
Unlike useless ones like the head living advocate for evolution theory.
In the first link you see his theory proven nonsense. You said science accepts changes, he doesn't he is the most useless scientist of all time.
It's like you try to use it when it favors your point of view, but try to refute it when it doesn't
Wrong . you are trying to put me in a position of science hater to favour your side of argument.I'm only a nonsense hater, and darwin's evolution theory is nonsense to me andi don't see it as a part of science. Don't use this to affect things.
By the way i also thing big bang is bullshit. some stupid atrocious wild guesses have been accepted and promoted as theories .....unbelieveable.
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
Where did lightbulbs come from?
Do you know how many inventions have come up in ma head and their usefulness....it's usually amunition based...... all i need is equipments etc.
It exposes their fallacies and lies. The truth hurts.
Science? exposed?err....when? or just the usual loud mouth ...science is better than religion?
How do you think we know the world is round?
Err. the bible said it first.
"The earth is described in Job 26:7 as being suspended over empty space, implying a spherical figure. This notion is further entertained in Isaiah 40:21-22, which refers to “the circle of the earth.” This is further supported by Proverbs 8:27 (NKJV), which speaks of God drawing a circle on the face of the deep. From a “bird’s-eye view” of the ocean, the horizon is seen as a circle. Such an observation indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins, describing the reality of day and night on a spherical earth."
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.
You have a very poor understanding of what science is.
Sorry its you who is delusive and over exaggerating.
It isn't just curious people discovering things.
Many saw the moon and promised to pull it down for their lovers. Someone saw and decided to get closer to it and study more out of Kuliorciti.
There's a very specific method that you need to follow
And where did i say otherwise.
When i said study, what do you think goes into it?
You can't just stumble upon an idea and call yourself a scientist.
Carl Gauss at age 10 developed and a faster formula for arithmetic sequence still used today...is he mathematician?
Anyone who puts an idea(nature) at heart to investigate is a scientist.
You do not have this understanding
You make baseless conclusions and then you carry on.....good debating skill, good scientist.
I call you a science hater because you favor religion over science.
In which instances?
Your mind is made up about anything that contradicts your world view.
Err....you're gifted with telepathic abilities or just another baseless assertion just to help you move on.
That is why you can look at something like evolution or the big bang and easily dismiss it without even understanding the argument.
as predicted, you wanted to get on to something......still baseless.....no facts……mere opinions and convenient assertions.
You just cannot comprehend all of the work that went on behind it.
lol...i guess i'm not accustomed to swallowing BS.
Two(there are even more)guesses, evolution and Big bang, and even big bang has two sides to it, so much confusion among these people...l prefer peace.
There are other 1000s of scientists who have signed petitions to reject evolution, some are scared to, so not lose their career.....
Do they not know what went into it?
they just don't care to discuss something they have no way of analyzing at this time.
so why would they analyse God? do they have a way that was attempted and failed? You cannot tell how the big bang started, assuming if true, what if triggered by God? No means of analysing right?
You don't get to choose what is a part of science.
no man created the universe, science is for all. A large number of accredited scientists have discarded it the rest are scared or atheists.
Evolution has years of study behind it
Its like MJ having several plastic surgeries to be white.....he is till black in genes. Several years of studying Bullshit doesn't make it logical.
has evidence in the real world to back it up.
There is not a single evidence provided. It only explains how it could happen with some required factors time, environmental conditions etc.
one or two experiments to prove have always been negative
Many natural phenominas among other species proves it wrong. brief: tap the first link i gave earlier.
But someone who favors religion doesn't take a close look at the evidence.
With or without religion, i will still reject evolution. i'm a proper scientist than all evolutionists combined(past, present,future).
it is literally the best guess we have.
oh so now it's a guess but not wild?
hmmm
The bible didn't predict the world was round or that airplanes would fly in the sky
It is written in ink and you still insist it isn't there. what do you want, ice cream or your dick cut off?
If you asked people before they knew the world was round, they would've killed you and quoted your bible.
If someone claims he follows christ who preach peace is ready to kill you for that, err.....i don't call such people christians....satan in disguise...people swear on the bible and lie...still same....
The reason they thought so was because the bible said angels stood at the four corners of the earth which should represent north, south, east, west not a squared flat faced planet.
They had world political power to interprete the bible, who could challenge them? protestants won't dare to dare.
because of science.
i'm science....
Giving credit to the bible just exposes your delusional thinking.
i don't know your definition of credit.
Religious people do hate science today
There are thousands of accredited religious scientists. i don't hate science, nowasaint doesn't hate science, bront. doesn't, fromwithin doesn't. If you insist you should prove it irrefutably.
There might be some small theory in science they like and they will use that,
I don't like science, i like logic....
Don't care what the name is, science or sorcery.
but if another one messes with their head, they get angry and refute it.
Lol..so far i know you're not intelligent than i'm. if anything messes with ma head, It will cause a 9/11 in yours. So if you comprehend whatever, how much more me?
But since i have a higher mind, i am able to separate the chaff from the groundnut which you blindly swallow.
The idea that we evolved from apes pisses you off because you like the idea that God made you special.
Widely speculating.
The two have no link.
I do not wish to be special neither do i want to be/not an ape. I don't consume nonsense.
Your religion makes you arrogant and self important.
Is it truth or arrogance to say i'm more intelligent and productive than 500 zeebras combined?
Put 500 Zeebras in your company for a day and you will have faeces to clean for two weeks.
zero work.
i have one computer, if i send one email out 30 my boss asked me to,
i beat them hands down.
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.
What about today religious scientists? top 10 higest IQ's 8 are religious, 6 are christians.....
If he's everywhere, show me anything that points to that being true.
yeah so i quote it from your mind, though you insist He doesn't exist, It still bugs to still search, because denying God is denying yourself,
how bothered are you about Fairy godmothers?
I could make a CD for you too (whatever the heck that means).
lmfao......create debate(c. d)
But insulting science and saying theories are stupid
you mean evolution and big bang?
as far as i'm concerned they ate not science....they are guesses
So if you do have a good reason, give it to me instead of
i have three special links to that
I tried the last time but failed you know why ......
it seemed to be have been pulled off google and replaced with links(more than one) about richard dawkins spewing bountiful baseless nonsense why God doesn!t exist.
The good news is i have given it to several people on CD. so i can easily trace em......and you'll have it.
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.
Without establishing that i am a science hater, there is no way you know you can have any argument against me.
So you are forcefully calling me a science hater with reasons that don't make sense.
You are highly delusive
You accept any junk with the cover 'science'.
To say because science made certain things possible is extremely elementary....peurile.
That is the most useless argument you could use to refute God's existence when science hasn't even covered up to 1% of what the universe consists of.
You always want to resort to my religion. You want to blame M.R for not believing in evolution which is bullshit. There are many non christains who reject evolution.
Your exaggerations about science scares me.
Your mind is not yours .....blocked emancipation......highly indoctrined with facts and junk and cannot tell the difference.......you're a fucking slave.
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.
You combine a couple of my statements where the sense to be extracted that i hate science does not exist. You can force a little sense in it which i can also do same with several statements from other anti evolutionists and stupidly conclude....they hate science. you're so desperate.
Science haters don't make so much debates on science as i do.
I am only constantly attacking the evolution theory which i don't consider science.
I have read articles(supporting and refuting) and watched videos on evolution.......and i have concluded it is bullshit.
I hardly keep sources because i don't intend to argue over nonsense and go extra miles of providing backing evidence.
However i have recently provided you with a link among many regarding things science cannot explain yet.....where in the 1 & 2, some points raised against the evolution theory right before dawkins is still unanswered. You refused to see. Is that supposed to be my problem.
There are scientists with bountiful knowledge on evolution from russia and US who absolutely reject evolution bullshit, do you say they know no science and maths?
You know not better than anyone or you would understand there are many principles the atrocious evolution theory does not conform with and therefore renders it absolute bullshit.
I need not cite anything because i have not time for bullshit.
You do, you're free to investigate
Also i have provided four links of historical evidence outside the bible proving the authenticity of facts in the bible. That too you you pretend not to have seen it.
It's probably a little of both. Parts of it are definitely fiction. Genesis 30:25-43 tells us that you can make striped and spotted animals just by having them look at striped and spotted things while they're mating. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of biology knows that what you look at while mating doesn't determine what your baby will look like. If that were the case, everyone would be looking at photos of Chris Hemsworth or Kate Beckinsale while making babies, and make sure the TV isn't on, because they might accidentally see Donald Trump or Steve Buscemi.
