Total Posts:138|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Bible is Right!

ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:19:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
'Right' meaning: errorless, standard of morality, ethicial perfectness, no flaw.

In a recent debate I took the stance the Bible is right. Many allegations was brought out and because of lack of space we could not properly discuss the topics at hand 'hence' this topic in forum.

This is simple anyone can post. Anyone who has one single conflict with the Bible can post and discuss it. Any Christian can respond in defence or conflict. Any other religion or belief may respond with thier input.

Since my opponent in the debate used so many examples I will start with the top 5 he came with- here. As this goes I make it the oppositions point to bring new allegations forward not me or others pointing them out and explaining. Simple fact we believe in the Word of God and it is all Holy, you prove it aint. Also if you disagree with my interpreatations below respond!

Example 1:
Jesus geneology- We can all look at the geneology of Jesus in both Matthew and Mark. We are trying to resolve: is Jesus blood related to King David? Yes he is. Jesus was adopted by Joesph and is not Jesus's father. What people get confused is that Joesph to be King had to be from the tribe of Judah. David was from the tribe of Judah. So this means Joesph and David are kin because the royal blood is passed down. What most skip over is why would rightful heir to the throne of David marry a woman outside that bloodline? He didnt. Mary is of the tribe of Judah and of the same royal bloodlone. Therefore Jesus is kin to Joesph and David. Marry and Joesph are kin and they married to therefore reserving the bloodline. Making Jesus rightful heir to the throne after Joesph.

Example 2:
Captivity and Exodus- Many bring up the fact that archeaology has found no evidence. What does that mean? Does that mean it is not true? No. Just means there is no evidence. I cant say they are liars. But there are many reasons that there would be no evidence. For one in the Exodus why would they build and leave things to find? They knew they would leave wouldnt they? Also it is just to say that people dispose of dead bodies and bodies rot. Any equipment and things made or pocessed would have been took by other inhabintants. There has been thousands of years that have passed with looters and many acient archaeology. There could literally dozens of reasons why there would not 1 trace but science refuses that because they know everything. Point is this is a mute matter for both parties here. No one can prove it did not take place and no one has proof other than the Bible that it did. That is a tie. But the Bible has one advantage. It has reliability in past events. Many things the Bible has within it happened and no one can deny that has been discovered time and time again and by this evidence the Bible has ceditbility. The front to back cover to cover words, stories, and history should offer up some really good errors but there are few to mention by opposers. So this goes to who wins the legitimate arguement!

Example 3:
Mustard seed- I only use the Standard King James Bible!
KJV-R (Webster) Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
We see the word 'sown' here: to scatter seed over (land, earth, etc.) for the purpose of growth. Growing a household plant is not sowing. To sow you must purposefully scatter them in the field and they grow from self sufficiant means in the field. No other can!
I ask what other seed smaller than the mustard is sown in the ground for crop?

Example 4:
Geneocide/Rape/Slavery. Numbers 1-31:1-19 talks about slaying the Midanities and there firstborn and non-virgins.
Midianites- The Midianites were a tribal league of generally nomadic peoples, with a wide variation in orientation, ethics, and practices.
They were known to engage in kidnapping and international slave trading, as well as raiding and pillage of sedentary peoples/villages.
The Moabites, who start the chain of events leading to Numbers 31, are under no danger or threat from Israel, but nonetheless begin unprovoked attempts to vanquish the unsuspecting Israelites
After the Mesopotamian diviner/sorcerer/prophet Balaam fails to curse Israel, he nevertheless advises the Midianite leadership on how to overcome Israel—by a sexual deception of a massive scale.
Moab transports women into the area en masse, and Midian moves into the territory east of Shittim, to begin this initiative. Some 6,000-12,000 married women aggressively offer sex to the Israelite men (most of whom are married), and after having sex/adultery, convince then to participate in further acts (involving both sex and disloyalty to the Lord).
Israel ‘falls for it', and likely makes a ‘covenant' with a Canaanite fertility god of vegetation (Baal Peor), and are judged by God (at least 24,000 Israelites die of a plague, most of which are males)
The Moabite and Midianite women retreat out of the area, having successfully used their sex as a weapon (with full knowledge, consent, support, and encouragement from their husbands, fathers, and civic leaders).
For this atrocity, God orders Israel to attack this specific group of Midianites (not the Moabites) and eliminate them.
The Israelite force of 12,000 men travel east/southeast to where the Midianite sub-group is camping, and engage in combat. (They are NOT instructed to hunt "all the Midianites in the world down and kill them"—just this group that did the treachery at Baal Peor.) They kill almost all of the males in this battle, but return to the Israelite camp with the herds and property of the Midianites, as well as with the women and (mostly girl) children.
Moses is shocked to find out that they spared the very women who used the sex-weapon against them, and even brought these women back to the Israelite camp! He orders them to execute the women, who had been involved in the treachery (but only the Midianite women—the Moabite women are spared), and any remaining males among the children.
The remaining young girls—with an average age of 5 years—were spared and distributed throughout the people, into families. They would eventually be assimilated into Israel families, but from this moment on, they would care for them, feed them, train them, etc. for family life in Palestine.
The 32,000 young girls could be assimilated into Israel, largely because of the death of the 24,000 adult Israelites.
The judgment for the atrocity at Baal Peor fell both on Israel and Midian—both would have lost around 24,000 adult members of the population, and the consequences on the Midianite children (especially the boys) would have been a direct result of the choices of their parents and leaders.
The realities of life in the ANE precluded absorption of the residual boys into the people—in keeping with realities of the time.

Example 5:
Snakes do not eat dirt- KJV-R (Webster) Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou artcursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Here it does not say that the snake will only eat dirt only that he will concume it all his life and snales today do.
Snakes have an organ on the inside of their mouth called the "Jacobson's Organ", which helps the snake to smell things, in additional to the functionality already provided by its nose. The entire process is done through sampling bits of dust and dirt on the snakes tongue. Aside from this, snakes also attack, and consume, prey from the ground. In doing so, they would be consuming dust, too. You try eating a steak off the ground without getting some dust in your mouth. Anyone knows dust gets in the air and we ourselves consume it, snakes live, eat, on the ground. Plus they live in holes underground this could cause alot of dust consumed.

I thnak you for reading and hope you have some res
TheAsylum
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:26:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just with example two: the fact that there is no evidence makes it extremely unlikely that it is true. it's not no evidence: it's negative evidence. Exodus predicts a large number of jews at one point. There is no point where these jews could have came in and had such a massive effect. Nor is there any recorded event. Thus, the evidence is against it. Also, it is a very flimsy position where you say it is true, yet cannot provide any evidence for it.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:30:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lol Even the first line of The Bible is false.

The Earth wasn't "created" or formed anywhere "the beginning" (try about 9.2 billion years later).

If you open a book that is supposed to be inspired by the creator of the universe, and even the first line is false, then it's hard not to chuckle inside knowing that people actually believe this garbage.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:36:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:30:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The Earth wasn't "created" or formed anywhere "the beginning" (try about 9.2 billion years later).

Huh?
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:37:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:30:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lol Even the first line of The Bible is false.

The Earth wasn't "created" or formed anywhere "the beginning" (try about 9.2 billion years later).

If you open a book that is supposed to be inspired by the creator of the universe, and even the first line is false, then it's hard not to chuckle inside knowing that people actually believe this garbage.

the line "in the beginning" can be thought of in two ways: either a summary introducing the passage, or as the first event. I don't see how "the beginning" is in contradiction with what modern science tells us.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:40:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:36:06 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:30:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The Earth wasn't "created" or formed anywhere "the beginning" (try about 9.2 billion years later).

Huh?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1:1

So, if we assume the universe began to exist (as all Christians do), then this means the Plank Epoch (zero-10-43 seconds) would be the closest measurable to this "beginning". However, the Earth didn't exist until 9.2 billion years after The Big Bang. Thus, God couldn't have created the Earth in the "beginning" like The Bible says.

Therefore, the even the first line of The Bible is rubbish.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:42:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:37:37 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:30:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lol Even the first line of The Bible is false.

The Earth wasn't "created" or formed anywhere "the beginning" (try about 9.2 billion years later).

If you open a book that is supposed to be inspired by the creator of the universe, and even the first line is false, then it's hard not to chuckle inside knowing that people actually believe this garbage.

the line "in the beginning" can be thought of in two ways: either a summary introducing the passage, or as the first event. I don't see how "the beginning" is in contradiction with what modern science tells us.

"either a summary introducing the passage"

This is stupid. The Bible is clearly isn't implying that.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:42:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:26:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Just with example two: the fact that there is no evidence makes it extremely unlikely that it is true. it's not no evidence: it's negative evidence. Exodus predicts a large number of jews at one point. There is no point where these jews could have came in and had such a massive effect. Nor is there any recorded event. Thus, the evidence is against it. Also, it is a very flimsy position where you say it is true, yet cannot provide any evidence for it.

I have the Bible and its truth! You have no evidence as proof. We getting no where there thats a chioce no evidence for either!
TheAsylum
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:43:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:42:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"either a summary introducing the passage"

This is stupid. The Bible is clearly isn't implying that.

Why do you think that? There's lots of bible commentaries that disagree with you haha.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:44:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:42:51 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:26:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Just with example two: the fact that there is no evidence makes it extremely unlikely that it is true. it's not no evidence: it's negative evidence. Exodus predicts a large number of jews at one point. There is no point where these jews could have came in and had such a massive effect. Nor is there any recorded event. Thus, the evidence is against it. Also, it is a very flimsy position where you say it is true, yet cannot provide any evidence for it.

I have the Bible and its truth! You have no evidence as proof. We getting no where there thats a chioce no evidence for either!

The Bible is false though, with so many errors and contradictions. It's a joke, for a lack of a better word lol
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:44:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:30:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lol Even the first line of The Bible is false.

The Earth wasn't "created" or formed anywhere "the beginning" (try about 9.2 billion years later).

If you open a book that is supposed to be inspired by the creator of the universe, and even the first line is false, then it's hard not to chuckle inside knowing that people actually believe this garbage.

It it is heart-breaking seeing people not believe. Thier personal spitirual being is dead to them. Its garbage.
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:46:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:43:32 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:42:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"either a summary introducing the passage"

This is stupid. The Bible is clearly isn't implying that.

Why do you think that? There's lots of bible commentaries that disagree with you haha.

It's horrible grammar and makes no sense, the "in the beginning X occurred" clearly implies a beginning in the way I mentioned.

Thus, whoever you are getting that interpretation from is taking you for a long ride. They are clearly just trying to wiggle their way out of the implications.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:46:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:44:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:42:51 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:26:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Just with example two: the fact that there is no evidence makes it extremely unlikely that it is true. it's not no evidence: it's negative evidence. Exodus predicts a large number of jews at one point. There is no point where these jews could have came in and had such a massive effect. Nor is there any recorded event. Thus, the evidence is against it. Also, it is a very flimsy position where you say it is true, yet cannot provide any evidence for it.

I have the Bible and its truth! You have no evidence as proof. We getting no where there thats a chioce no evidence for either!

The Bible is false though, with so many errors and contradictions. It's a joke, for a lack of a better word lol

Prove it or do not say it.
TheAsylum
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:46:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:44:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The Bible is false though, with so many errors and contradictions. It's a joke, for a lack of a better word lol

Can you name some contradictions please? I would like some different ones from the genealogies, time Jesus crucified ect. that have been answered plenty of times.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:48:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:46:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:43:32 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:42:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"either a summary introducing the passage"

This is stupid. The Bible is clearly isn't implying that.

Why do you think that? There's lots of bible commentaries that disagree with you haha.

It's horrible grammar and makes no sense, the "in the beginning X occurred" clearly implies a beginning in the way I mentioned.

Thus, whoever you are getting that interpretation from is taking you for a long ride. They are clearly just trying to wiggle their way out of the implications.

Its interpreted through the Holy Ghost any man will get his own and though if both have Jesus Christ thier interpretations will almost mimic.
TheAsylum
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:48:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:46:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

It's horrible grammar and makes no sense, the "in the beginning X occurred" clearly implies a beginning in the way I mentioned.

Thus, whoever you are getting that interpretation from is taking you for a long ride. They are clearly just trying to wiggle their way out of the implications.

In the beginning doesn't imply a specific time. I still don't see how it's in contradiction to modern science.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:49:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:46:45 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:44:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:42:51 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:26:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Just with example two: the fact that there is no evidence makes it extremely unlikely that it is true. it's not no evidence: it's negative evidence. Exodus predicts a large number of jews at one point. There is no point where these jews could have came in and had such a massive effect. Nor is there any recorded event. Thus, the evidence is against it. Also, it is a very flimsy position where you say it is true, yet cannot provide any evidence for it.

I have the Bible and its truth! You have no evidence as proof. We getting no where there thats a chioce no evidence for either!

The Bible is false though, with so many errors and contradictions. It's a joke, for a lack of a better word lol

Prove it or do not say it.

It would take a long time to prove the entire Bible false, I'm happy with just proving the first line false as far as this thread is concerned.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:51:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:46:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:43:32 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:42:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"either a summary introducing the passage"

This is stupid. The Bible is clearly isn't implying that.

Why do you think that? There's lots of bible commentaries that disagree with you haha.

It's horrible grammar and makes no sense, the "in the beginning X occurred" clearly implies a beginning in the way I mentioned.

Thus, whoever you are getting that interpretation from is taking you for a long ride. They are clearly just trying to wiggle their way out of the implications.

What is grammer(or language) though I speak English I use it my own way, grammer is someone's own verbal expression?
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:51:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:48:22 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:46:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

It's horrible grammar and makes no sense, the "in the beginning X occurred" clearly implies a beginning in the way I mentioned.

Thus, whoever you are getting that interpretation from is taking you for a long ride. They are clearly just trying to wiggle their way out of the implications.

In the beginning doesn't imply a specific time. I still don't see how it's in contradiction to modern science.

"In the beginning doesn't imply a specific time"

Yes it does, it implies the beginning, which we now know as Plank Time.

"I still don't see how it's in contradiction to modern science."

Maybe if you started to "see" why you were wrong more often, it would happen less often.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:52:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:49:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:46:45 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:44:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:42:51 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:26:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Just with example two: the fact that there is no evidence makes it extremely unlikely that it is true. it's not no evidence: it's negative evidence. Exodus predicts a large number of jews at one point. There is no point where these jews could have came in and had such a massive effect. Nor is there any recorded event. Thus, the evidence is against it. Also, it is a very flimsy position where you say it is true, yet cannot provide any evidence for it.

I have the Bible and its truth! You have no evidence as proof. We getting no where there thats a chioce no evidence for either!

The Bible is false though, with so many errors and contradictions. It's a joke, for a lack of a better word lol

Prove it or do not say it.

It would take a long time to prove the entire Bible false, I'm happy with just proving the first line false as far as this thread is concerned.

LOL.Prove that without giving me the words, speculation, theory, hypothesis, esitmate, calculation! OK! =]
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:53:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:51:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:48:22 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:46:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

It's horrible grammar and makes no sense, the "in the beginning X occurred" clearly implies a beginning in the way I mentioned.

Thus, whoever you are getting that interpretation from is taking you for a long ride. They are clearly just trying to wiggle their way out of the implications.

In the beginning doesn't imply a specific time. I still don't see how it's in contradiction to modern science.

"In the beginning doesn't imply a specific time"

Yes it does, it implies the beginning, which we now know as Plank Time.

"I still don't see how it's in contradiction to modern science."

Maybe if you started to "see" why you were wrong more often, it would happen less often.

Yes, tell me what happened in the beginning, and when it happened, and what caused to happen?
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:53:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:52:28 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:49:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:46:45 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:44:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:42:51 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:26:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Just with example two: the fact that there is no evidence makes it extremely unlikely that it is true. it's not no evidence: it's negative evidence. Exodus predicts a large number of jews at one point. There is no point where these jews could have came in and had such a massive effect. Nor is there any recorded event. Thus, the evidence is against it. Also, it is a very flimsy position where you say it is true, yet cannot provide any evidence for it.

I have the Bible and its truth! You have no evidence as proof. We getting no where there thats a chioce no evidence for either!

The Bible is false though, with so many errors and contradictions. It's a joke, for a lack of a better word lol

Prove it or do not say it.

It would take a long time to prove the entire Bible false, I'm happy with just proving the first line false as far as this thread is concerned.

LOL.Prove that without giving me the words, speculation, theory, hypothesis, esitmate, calculation! OK! =]

Prove you are a human without using words, theory, hypothesis, estimate, or calculation, OK!

Your arguments are moronic.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:54:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:53:57 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:51:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:48:22 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:46:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

It's horrible grammar and makes no sense, the "in the beginning X occurred" clearly implies a beginning in the way I mentioned.

Thus, whoever you are getting that interpretation from is taking you for a long ride. They are clearly just trying to wiggle their way out of the implications.

In the beginning doesn't imply a specific time. I still don't see how it's in contradiction to modern science.

"In the beginning doesn't imply a specific time"

Yes it does, it implies the beginning, which we now know as Plank Time.

"I still don't see how it's in contradiction to modern science."

Maybe if you started to "see" why you were wrong more often, it would happen less often.

Yes, tell me what happened in the beginning, and when it happened, and what caused to happen?

Shifting the goal posts.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:55:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:53:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:52:28 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:49:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:46:45 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:44:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:42:51 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:26:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Just with example two: the fact that there is no evidence makes it extremely unlikely that it is true. it's not no evidence: it's negative evidence. Exodus predicts a large number of jews at one point. There is no point where these jews could have came in and had such a massive effect. Nor is there any recorded event. Thus, the evidence is against it. Also, it is a very flimsy position where you say it is true, yet cannot provide any evidence for it.

I have the Bible and its truth! You have no evidence as proof. We getting no where there thats a chioce no evidence for either!

The Bible is false though, with so many errors and contradictions. It's a joke, for a lack of a better word lol

Prove it or do not say it.

It would take a long time to prove the entire Bible false, I'm happy with just proving the first line false as far as this thread is concerned.

LOL.Prove that without giving me the words, speculation, theory, hypothesis, esitmate, calculation! OK! =]

Prove you are a human without using words, theory, hypothesis, estimate, or calculation, OK!

Your arguments are moronic.

I can do that. I am a human. It is the simplest explanation as to why I am typing and able to think about these issues on this website.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:57:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:53:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:52:28 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:49:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:46:45 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:44:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:42:51 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:26:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Just with example two: the fact that there is no evidence makes it extremely unlikely that it is true. it's not no evidence: it's negative evidence. Exodus predicts a large number of jews at one point. There is no point where these jews could have came in and had such a massive effect. Nor is there any recorded event. Thus, the evidence is against it. Also, it is a very flimsy position where you say it is true, yet cannot provide any evidence for it.

I have the Bible and its truth! You have no evidence as proof. We getting no where there thats a chioce no evidence for either!

The Bible is false though, with so many errors and contradictions. It's a joke, for a lack of a better word lol

Prove it or do not say it.

It would take a long time to prove the entire Bible false, I'm happy with just proving the first line false as far as this thread is concerned.

LOL.Prove that without giving me the words, speculation, theory, hypothesis, esitmate, calculation! OK! =]

Prove you are a human without using words, theory, hypothesis, estimate, or calculation, OK!

Your arguments are moronic.

I known I am what the Bible tells me I am. It is not a any of them things mentioned above, I known, you dont you have physical evidence. You can call it a theory cause that is you thats what you know, I know the real and the truth and that is what it is truth not a theory. I live that it is true but you are lacking any believe, structure, or any faith.
TheAsylum
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:58:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:51:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"In the beginning doesn't imply a specific time"

Yes it does, it implies the beginning, which we now know as Plank Time.

"I still don't see how it's in contradiction to modern science."

Maybe if you started to "see" why you were wrong more often, it would happen less often.

Yeah I think it was just saying (in the beginning) in general. I'm open to being wrong if you just point out where I'm wrong.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:58:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:55:51 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:53:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:52:28 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:49:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:46:45 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:44:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:42:51 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:26:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Just with example two: the fact that there is no evidence makes it extremely unlikely that it is true. it's not no evidence: it's negative evidence. Exodus predicts a large number of jews at one point. There is no point where these jews could have came in and had such a massive effect. Nor is there any recorded event. Thus, the evidence is against it. Also, it is a very flimsy position where you say it is true, yet cannot provide any evidence for it.

I have the Bible and its truth! You have no evidence as proof. We getting no where there thats a chioce no evidence for either!

The Bible is false though, with so many errors and contradictions. It's a joke, for a lack of a better word lol

Prove it or do not say it.

It would take a long time to prove the entire Bible false, I'm happy with just proving the first line false as far as this thread is concerned.

LOL.Prove that without giving me the words, speculation, theory, hypothesis, esitmate, calculation! OK! =]

Prove you are a human without using words, theory, hypothesis, estimate, or calculation, OK!

Your arguments are moronic.

I can do that. I am a human. It is the simplest explanation as to why I am typing and able to think about these issues on this website.

You used words, and your hypothesis was that if it's the simplest explanation, it's true. Thus, you failed.

Not, that anyone should be expected to succeed. I'm just showing how stupid the other posters argument was.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:00:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just with example two: the fact that there is no evidence makes it extremely unlikely that it is true. it's not no evidence: it's negative evidence. Exodus predicts a large number of jews at one point. There is no point where these jews could have came in and had such a massive effect. Nor is there any recorded event. Thus, the evidence is against it. Also, it is a very flimsy position where you say it is true, yet cannot provide any evidence for it.

I have the Bible and its truth! You have no evidence as proof. We getting no where there thats a chioce no evidence for either!

The Bible is false though, with so many errors and contradictions. It's a joke, for a lack of a better word lol

Prove it or do not say it.

It would take a long time to prove the entire Bible false, I'm happy with just proving the first line false as far as this thread is concerned.

LOL.Prove that without giving me the words, speculation, theory, hypothesis, esitmate, calculation! OK! =]

Prove you are a human without using words, theory, hypothesis, estimate, or calculation, OK!

Your arguments are moronic.

I can do that. I am a human. It is the simplest explanation as to why I am typing and able to think about these issues on this website.

You used words, and your hypothesis was that if it's the simplest explanation, it's true. Thus, you failed.

He never said anything about not using words...so mocking there fails.

No, my hypothesis was that since it is the simplest explanation, it is up to you to prove that I am not human :P I mean everyone has a hypothesis when they argue...even Scotty here does.


Not, that anyone should be expected to succeed. I'm just showing how stupid the other posters argument was.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:01:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:58:08 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:51:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"In the beginning doesn't imply a specific time"

Yes it does, it implies the beginning, which we now know as Plank Time.

"I still don't see how it's in contradiction to modern science."

Maybe if you started to "see" why you were wrong more often, it would happen less often.

Yeah I think it was just saying (in the beginning) in general. I'm open to being wrong if you just point out where I'm wrong.

"Yeah I think it was just saying (in the beginning) in general."

A beginning is a specific point in time, and thus, is not general.

"I'm open to being wrong if you just point out where I'm wrong."

I have pointed out many things that you have been absolutely wrong about in the past, it's seems that stubs is short for stubborn.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:02:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I HAVENT SEEN ONE EXAMPLE YET??=[

Using the Bibg Bang theory and totality is not anymore provable than says: the next card on the top of the deck will be the Ace of spades its a guess unless its already known. Which if its already known then it was set up. If it was set up then its cheating. If its cheating then we need to stop listening to what they say. Only someone who can actually know where every card is can pull the correct card and that is God.
TheAsylum