Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

From Dust to Man: A Scientific Proof

Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
They alleged that the creation of Adam is an "anti-scientific nonsense", and God did not create Adam from a handful of dust, like the Bible says. To my readers, see how these blatant liars are "wrestling" the words of the Bible. Their allegation and their pre-conceived idea are not written in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible can you find a verse that Adam was created by God from a handful of dust. What is written is recorded in Genesis 2:7, which says:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

While it is true that God created man from the dust of the ground, the phrase "handful of dust" is absent in the verse! It is conceived it the minds of these perverts. Be that as it may, the information in the Bible is scientific! Granting, without accepting, that there is such a thing as a "handful of dust", whose hands will be the measuring hands for the dust that God will use in the formation of Adam? People who cremate the dead have an idea of how much dust will be left of the human body after cremation. I am sure it is not a sack of dust; but very close to a handful " depending on the hands that holds them. And why is it scientific? God made man from the dust; and when his body dies it decomposes and turns again to dust.

(Genesis 3:19) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

human_body.jpg

What are the scientific proof that man"s body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says? The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth"s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.

mineral_graph.jpg

The ignorance of these "imaginary people" in what the Bible says betrays their alleged intelligence and knowledge in science. Of course, the human body is not made up only of dust, but God mixed the dust to water to produce clay.

(Job 10:9) "Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?"

(Romans 9:20-21) "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"

The mixture is clay, understandably contains more water than dust. Who says that the information in the Bible is scientifically nonsense? They are the one"s that are nonsensical, and not the Bible!

The exact proportion of the minerals and materials, if maintained, make up a healthy human body (http://www.emory.edu...). Excesses in these materials will cause disorders and diseases. Excess of aluminum, for example, and iron, will be toxic for the human body. The proportions of the abundance of the 59 elements on the earths crust, is amazingly represented in its presence in the human body. Who says that the Bible is not scientific? These "imaginary and anti-scientific people"!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 11:23:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM, Bendido wrote:
They alleged that the creation of Adam is an "anti-scientific nonsense", and God did not create Adam from a handful of dust, like the Bible says. To my readers, see how these blatant liars are "wrestling" the words of the Bible. Their allegation and their pre-conceived idea are not written in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible can you find a verse that Adam was created by God from a handful of dust. What is written is recorded in Genesis 2:7, which says:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

While it is true that God created man from the dust of the ground, the phrase "handful of dust" is absent in the verse! It is conceived it the minds of these perverts. Be that as it may, the information in the Bible is scientific! Granting, without accepting, that there is such a thing as a "handful of dust", whose hands will be the measuring hands for the dust that God will use in the formation of Adam? People who cremate the dead have an idea of how much dust will be left of the human body after cremation. I am sure it is not a sack of dust; but very close to a handful " depending on the hands that holds them. And why is it scientific? God made man from the dust; and when his body dies it decomposes and turns again to dust.

(Genesis 3:19) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

human_body.jpg

What are the scientific proof that man"s body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says? The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth"s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.

mineral_graph.jpg

The ignorance of these "imaginary people" in what the Bible says betrays their alleged intelligence and knowledge in science. Of course, the human body is not made up only of dust, but God mixed the dust to water to produce clay.


(Job 10:9) "Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?"

(Romans 9:20-21) "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"

The mixture is clay, understandably contains more water than dust. Who says that the information in the Bible is scientifically nonsense? They are the one"s that are nonsensical, and not the Bible!

The exact proportion of the minerals and materials, if maintained, make up a healthy human body (http://www.emory.edu...). Excesses in these materials will cause disorders and diseases. Excess of aluminum, for example, and iron, will be toxic for the human body. The proportions of the abundance of the 59 elements on the earths crust, is amazingly represented in its presence in the human body. Who says that the Bible is not scientific? These "imaginary and anti-scientific people"!

Evolution explains this -a lot- better, more completely, and doesn't quibble about quantity.

To put it another way, it wouldn't matter if it was a handful, two dump trucks full, or a dust Golem given a parchment to 'live'. Its a laughable claim.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 12:42:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
...and this is why you should stay in school, boys and girls.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 4:13:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM, Bendido wrote:
They alleged that the creation of Adam is an "anti-scientific nonsense", and God did not create Adam from a handful of dust, like the Bible says. To my readers, see how these blatant liars are "wrestling" the words of the Bible. Their allegation and their pre-conceived idea are not written in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible can you find a verse that Adam was created by God from a handful of dust. What is written is recorded in Genesis 2:7, which says:
...

Where to start... okay. The phrase "scientific proof" is a dead give-away. Science does not subscribe to the subjective concept of "proofs". This is an oft-used attempt to gain credibility, by proclaiming scientific consistency. And you have offered none.

When a body is cremated, it has undergone combustion. The result is not "dust of the earth" as the Bible states, it's ash. During the process of combustion, carbon-carbon bonds are broken and replaced with carbon-oxygen bonds. The molecules themselves are changed dramatically, and the energy levels required to maintain the molecular integrity is dramatically lowered. A carbon-carbon bond requires more energy to maintain than a carbon-oxygen bond, which is why energy (in the form of heat and light), are released in through the process of combustion. So the result is ash, not dust.

Thirdly, we are not composed of the dust of the earth. If anything, it is more correct to state that we are composed of star dust. So is the earth, for that matter. But biological bodies have a far different concentration of elements than does the "dust of the Earth". There are 92 known naturally occurring elements in the Earth. Three of these were produced by big-bang. Twenty-three of them are produced by fusion in the core of stars. The rest are created in the destruction of stars (super-novas). Yet the Bible makes the hilarious claim that Earth existed (Gen 1:1), before stars (Gen 1:16). And this is just one place where the Bible demonstrates it's lack of veracity.

Your reference to "Job" is a result of ignoring what the Bible says, and replacing it with what you want it to say. The phrase "thou hast made me as the clay", means by the same process, not to the same result. If I were to say, "I made the icing flowers as I made the icing leaves", I'm stating that I used the same technique, the same methods. I'm not saying that it resulted in the same thing.

I find it entertaining when I see people pick a single statement from the creation sequence in the Bible, and proclaim it to be "scientific", while totally ignoring all of the scientifically refuted claims made in the Genesis creation story. I've already mentioned that it claims Earth existed before the sun and stars, and explained why that isn't true (earth is composed of elements fused by stars). But it goes on to tell us that Earth was formed covered in water, but devoid of an atmosphere (Gen 1:2 / Gen 1:6-7). Without atmospheric pressure, water vaporizes at an explosive rate. By the time the next "day" comes along where God creates the atmosphere (firmament), the water will all be gone. Then it tells us that the water is liquid and flowing (Gen 1:9), even before the sun exists. Without the sun, Earth would be only slightly warmer than space, and the mean temperature of space is 454-degrees below zero, Fahrenheit. The water would definitely be frozen solid. And then we come to Gen 1:11-12, where the Bible (in all of it's lack of wisdom), proclaims that plants were thriving on the Earth, still before the sun exists, meaning those plants would have to survive 24-hours in cryogenic temperatures. It even names fruit trees, and fruit trees are known for being extremely sensitive to cold. They die quickly at temperatures hundreds of degrees warmer than the Earth according to Genesis.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 4:32:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM, Bendido wrote:

< Apologetics snipped >

So a supernatural being shaped a clay figure and then turned it into flesh by magic? What did this being need the clay figure for if it could do magic?

Your post contained no actual science and no proof (which is nonsensical in science anyway). That's a fail on both counts. Not bad.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 4:58:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Human Body
Oxygen 65%
Carbon 18.5%
Hydrogen 9.5%
Nitrogen 3.2%
Calcium 1.5%
Phosphorus 1.0%
Potassium 0.4%
Sulfur 0.3%
Sodium 0.2%
Chlorine 0.2%
Magnesium 0.1%

Earth's Crust
Oxygen 46%
Silicon 27%
Aluminium 8.2%
Iron 6.3%
Calcium 5%
Magnesium 2.9%
Sodium 2.3%
Potassium 1.5%
Titanium 0.7%
Hydrogen 0.2%
Phosphorus 0.1%

I invite people to look carefully at the amount of carbon and hydrogen in the human body. Where are they in the Earth's crust? Trace elements.

Ha ha ha ha.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 5:16:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 4:58:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
Human Body
Oxygen 65%
Carbon 18.5%
Hydrogen 9.5%
Nitrogen 3.2%
Calcium 1.5%
Phosphorus 1.0%
Potassium 0.4%
Sulfur 0.3%
Sodium 0.2%
Chlorine 0.2%
Magnesium 0.1%

Earth's Crust
Oxygen 46%
Silicon 27%
Aluminium 8.2%
Iron 6.3%
Calcium 5%
Magnesium 2.9%
Sodium 2.3%
Potassium 1.5%
Titanium 0.7%
Hydrogen 0.2%
Phosphorus 0.1%

I invite people to look carefully at the amount of carbon and hydrogen in the human body. Where are they in the Earth's crust? Trace elements.

Ha ha ha ha.

I'm not a chemist but I'm willing to go out on a limb and declare a mis-match.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 5:49:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 5:16:09 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 4:58:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
Human Body
Oxygen 65%
Carbon 18.5%
Hydrogen 9.5%
Nitrogen 3.2%
Calcium 1.5%
Phosphorus 1.0%
Potassium 0.4%
Sulfur 0.3%
Sodium 0.2%
Chlorine 0.2%
Magnesium 0.1%

Earth's Crust
Oxygen 46%
Silicon 27%
Aluminium 8.2%
Iron 6.3%
Calcium 5%
Magnesium 2.9%
Sodium 2.3%
Potassium 1.5%
Titanium 0.7%
Hydrogen 0.2%
Phosphorus 0.1%

I invite people to look carefully at the amount of carbon and hydrogen in the human body. Where are they in the Earth's crust? Trace elements.

Ha ha ha ha.

I'm not a chemist but I'm willing to go out on a limb and declare a mis-match.

God could have made a steam-powered android wearing a shark-tooth necklace maybe?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 5:54:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 5:49:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/12/2014 5:16:09 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 4:58:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
Human Body
Oxygen 65%
Carbon 18.5%
Hydrogen 9.5%
Nitrogen 3.2%
Calcium 1.5%
Phosphorus 1.0%
Potassium 0.4%
Sulfur 0.3%
Sodium 0.2%
Chlorine 0.2%
Magnesium 0.1%

Earth's Crust
Oxygen 46%
Silicon 27%
Aluminium 8.2%
Iron 6.3%
Calcium 5%
Magnesium 2.9%
Sodium 2.3%
Potassium 1.5%
Titanium 0.7%
Hydrogen 0.2%
Phosphorus 0.1%

I invite people to look carefully at the amount of carbon and hydrogen in the human body. Where are they in the Earth's crust? Trace elements.

Ha ha ha ha.

I'm not a chemist but I'm willing to go out on a limb and declare a mis-match.

God could have made a steam-powered android wearing a shark-tooth necklace maybe?

That has to be it! Otherwise it would mean the Bible is wrong and we simply can't accept that.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 6:38:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 5:16:09 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 4:58:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
Human Body
Oxygen 65%
Carbon 18.5%
Hydrogen 9.5%
Nitrogen 3.2%
Calcium 1.5%
Phosphorus 1.0%
Potassium 0.4%
Sulfur 0.3%
Sodium 0.2%
Chlorine 0.2%
Magnesium 0.1%

Earth's Crust
Oxygen 46%
Silicon 27%
Aluminium 8.2%
Iron 6.3%
Calcium 5%
Magnesium 2.9%
Sodium 2.3%
Potassium 1.5%
Titanium 0.7%
Hydrogen 0.2%
Phosphorus 0.1%

I invite people to look carefully at the amount of carbon and hydrogen in the human body. Where are they in the Earth's crust? Trace elements.

Ha ha ha ha.

I'm not a chemist but I'm willing to go out on a limb and declare a mis-match.

All of those elements are just what man calls them, you must have the understanding of god's deeper meaning and not rely on what man claims is science.

As soon as anti-evolutionists, anti-science propagandists start practicing what they preach ie not using medicine, the world will be a much better place.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:38:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Or you could just not try making the bible out to be a science textbook.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:53:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:38:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Or you could just not try making the bible out to be a science textbook.

Where the Bible makes scientifically testable claims, (and it makes many such claims), it is subject to scientific falsifiability.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:09:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM, Bendido wrote:
Who says that the Bible is not scientific?

Anyone who has ever read it and compared it's claims to current scientific findings.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:31:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 11:09:38 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM, Bendido wrote:
Who says that the Bible is not scientific?

Anyone who has ever read it and compared it's claims to current scientific findings.

Best answer.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 12:10:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:53:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:38:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Or you could just not try making the bible out to be a science textbook.

Where the Bible makes scientifically testable claims, (and it makes many such claims), it is subject to scientific falsifiability.

Sure, if you confuse literary genres. It'd be like trying to find the material evidence of his existence left behind by the prodigal son.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 12:26:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM, Bendido wrote:
They alleged that the creation of Adam is an "anti-scientific nonsense", and God did not create Adam from a handful of dust, like the Bible says. To my readers, see how these blatant liars are "wrestling" the words of the Bible. Their allegation and their pre-conceived idea are not written in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible can you find a verse that Adam was created by God from a handful of dust. What is written is recorded in Genesis 2:7, which says:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

While it is true that God created man from the dust of the ground, the phrase "handful of dust" is absent in the verse! It is conceived it the minds of these perverts. Be that as it may, the information in the Bible is scientific! Granting, without accepting, that there is such a thing as a "handful of dust", whose hands will be the measuring hands for the dust that God will use in the formation of Adam? People who cremate the dead have an idea of how much dust will be left of the human body after cremation. I am sure it is not a sack of dust; but very close to a handful " depending on the hands that holds them. And why is it scientific? God made man from the dust; and when his body dies it decomposes and turns again to dust.

(Genesis 3:19) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

human_body.jpg

What are the scientific proof that man"s body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says? The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth"s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.

mineral_graph.jpg

The ignorance of these "imaginary people" in what the Bible says betrays their alleged intelligence and knowledge in science. Of course, the human body is not made up only of dust, but God mixed the dust to water to produce clay.


(Job 10:9) "Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?"

(Romans 9:20-21) "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"

The mixture is clay, understandably contains more water than dust. Who says that the information in the Bible is scientifically nonsense? They are the one"s that are nonsensical, and not the Bible!

The exact proportion of the minerals and materials, if maintained, make up a healthy human body (http://www.emory.edu...). Excesses in these materials will cause disorders and diseases. Excess of aluminum, for example, and iron, will be toxic for the human body. The proportions of the abundance of the 59 elements on the earths crust, is amazingly represented in its presence in the human body. Who says that the Bible is not scientific? These "imaginary and anti-scientific people"!

I could claim that the origin of human life was planted by an alien race and that we're just a huge scientific and social experiment to find their own possible origins. It would be a ridiculous claim although there are probably people who would fall for it. Where would my scientific proof come from? How would I explain where the alien race came from?

It's not scientific to claim "creation" was a purposeful intervention from an intelligent being. It's like saying we exist and therefore the scientific claims, though not justifiable by proof, are true. And that is exactly what you are doing.

Do not try to justify your beliefs with scientific reasoning. Your faith in the unseen exists even without scientific justification. Faith and fact do not have to align. It is simply your choice to defend your belief. I implore you, open yourself up to the possibility that the Bible is not based on science period.

A scientific claim has to be proven to even be considered a fact. And scientists are not so bold as to say that anything they have "proven" through scientific method is absolute. That is why it's all theory and not law. Ex: there is no law of gravity, it is a theory. Open yourself up to the possibility that you may be defending something as fact that can't be defended with logical argument. It doesn't make life less precious or beautiful. On the contrary, it becomes even more so.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 12:51:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 12:10:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:53:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:38:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Or you could just not try making the bible out to be a science textbook.

Where the Bible makes scientifically testable claims, (and it makes many such claims), it is subject to scientific falsifiability.

Sure, if you confuse literary genres. It'd be like trying to find the material evidence of his existence left behind by the prodigal son.

That's strictly incorrect. When the Bible claims that Earth existed before the sun and stars, that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun existed, that Earth was covered in water before the atmosphere existed and that Earth was covered in liquid water while the temperature was less than 400-degrees below zero, those are all scientifically falsifiable claims. All of the evasions in the world don't change that.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 4:13:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM, Bendido wrote:
They alleged that the creation of Adam is an "anti-scientific nonsense", and God did not create Adam from a handful of dust, like the Bible says. To my readers, see how these blatant liars are "wrestling" the words of the Bible. Their allegation and their pre-conceived idea are not written in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible can you find a verse that Adam was created by God from a handful of dust. What is written is recorded in Genesis 2:7, which says:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

While it is true that God created man from the dust of the ground, the phrase "handful of dust" is absent in the verse! It is conceived it the minds of these perverts. Be that as it may, the information in the Bible is scientific! Granting, without accepting, that there is such a thing as a "handful of dust", whose hands will be the measuring hands for the dust that God will use in the formation of Adam? People who cremate the dead have an idea of how much dust will be left of the human body after cremation. I am sure it is not a sack of dust; but very close to a handful " depending on the hands that holds them. And why is it scientific? God made man from the dust; and when his body dies it decomposes and turns again to dust.

(Genesis 3:19) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

human_body.jpg

What are the scientific proof that man"s body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says? The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth"s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.

mineral_graph.jpg

The ignorance of these "imaginary people" in what the Bible says betrays their alleged intelligence and knowledge in science. Of course, the human body is not made up only of dust, but God mixed the dust to water to produce clay.


(Job 10:9) "Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?"

(Romans 9:20-21) "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"

The mixture is clay, understandably contains more water than dust. Who says that the information in the Bible is scientifically nonsense? They are the one"s that are nonsensical, and not the Bible!

The exact proportion of the minerals and materials, if maintained, make up a healthy human body (http://www.emory.edu...). Excesses in these materials will cause disorders and diseases. Excess of aluminum, for example, and iron, will be toxic for the human body. The proportions of the abundance of the 59 elements on the earths crust, is amazingly represented in its presence in the human body. Who says that the Bible is not scientific? These "imaginary and anti-scientific people"!

I have never read a more retarded attempt by a theist to "hijack" the knowledge and discoveries made possible by science and intellectual inquiry.

FAIL
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 4:38:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 4:13:49 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM, Bendido wrote:
They alleged that the creation of Adam is an "anti-scientific nonsense", and God did not create Adam from a handful of dust, like the Bible says. To my readers, see how these blatant liars are "wrestling" the words of the Bible. Their allegation and their pre-conceived idea are not written in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible can you find a verse that Adam was created by God from a handful of dust. What is written is recorded in Genesis 2:7, which says:
...

Where to start... okay. The phrase "scientific proof" is a dead give-away. Science does not subscribe to the subjective concept of "proofs". This is an oft-used attempt to gain credibility, by proclaiming scientific consistency. And you have offered none.

When a body is cremated, it has undergone combustion. The result is not "dust of the earth" as the Bible states, it's ash. During the process of combustion, carbon-carbon bonds are broken and replaced with carbon-oxygen bonds. The molecules themselves are changed dramatically, and the energy levels required to maintain the molecular integrity is dramatically lowered. A carbon-carbon bond requires more energy to maintain than a carbon-oxygen bond, which is why energy (in the form of heat and light), are released in through the process of combustion. So the result is ash, not dust.

Thirdly, we are not composed of the dust of the earth. If anything, it is more correct to state that we are composed of star dust. So is the earth, for that matter. But biological bodies have a far different concentration of elements than does the "dust of the Earth". There are 92 known naturally occurring elements in the Earth. Three of these were produced by big-bang. Twenty-three of them are produced by fusion in the core of stars. The rest are created in the destruction of stars (super-novas). Yet the Bible makes the hilarious claim that Earth existed (Gen 1:1), before stars (Gen 1:16). And this is just one place where the Bible demonstrates it's lack of veracity.

Your reference to "Job" is a result of ignoring what the Bible says, and replacing it with what you want it to say. The phrase "thou hast made me as the clay", means by the same process, not to the same result. If I were to say, "I made the icing flowers as I made the icing leaves", I'm stating that I used the same technique, the same methods. I'm not saying that it resulted in the same thing.

I find it entertaining when I see people pick a single statement from the creation sequence in the Bible, and proclaim it to be "scientific", while totally ignoring all of the scientifically refuted claims made in the Genesis creation story. I've already mentioned that it claims Earth existed before the sun and stars, and explained why that isn't true (earth is composed of elements fused by stars). But it goes on to tell us that Earth was formed covered in water, but devoid of an atmosphere (Gen 1:2 / Gen 1:6-7). Without atmospheric pressure, water vaporizes at an explosive rate. By the time the next "day" comes along where God creates the atmosphere (firmament), the water will all be gone. Then it tells us that the water is liquid and flowing (Gen 1:9), even before the sun exists. Without the sun, Earth would be only slightly warmer than space, and the mean temperature of space is 454-degrees below zero, Fahrenheit. The water would definitely be frozen solid. And then we come to Gen 1:11-12, where the Bible (in all of it's lack of wisdom), proclaims that plants were thriving on the Earth, still before the sun exists, meaning those plants would have to survive 24-hours in cryogenic temperatures. It even names fruit trees, and fruit trees are known for being extremely sensitive to cold. They die quickly at temperatures hundreds of degrees warmer than the Earth according to Genesis.

Psssst! <whisper:> Hey, Beastt...

Should we also include all the scientific reasons why the "miracle" of the sun "standing still" for 24 hours for Joshua would have been catastrophic to the earth and all life on it?

Do you think explaining man's inability to breathe methane, for three days, and remain alive would be sufficient to hint why the Jonah story is unbelievable, or would we need to toss in the information about just how caustic digestive "juices" would be?

How about we mention all the "scientific" reasons that the Noah's ark tale is not only completely implausible, but downright laughable?

Would it be "over the top" if we demonstrate to him that the Hebrews were NEVER slaves, in Egypt?

Do you think it would hurt his feelings if we let him know that bats are not "birds," but "rodents?"

Must....
Not.....
Mock.....
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 4:59:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 4:38:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/12/2014 4:13:49 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM, Bendido wrote:
They alleged that the creation of Adam is an "anti-scientific nonsense", and God did not create Adam from a handful of dust, like the Bible says. To my readers, see how these blatant liars are "wrestling" the words of the Bible. Their allegation and their pre-conceived idea are not written in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible can you find a verse that Adam was created by God from a handful of dust. What is written is recorded in Genesis 2:7, which says:
...

Where to start... okay. The phrase "scientific proof" is a dead give-away. Science does not subscribe to the subjective concept of "proofs". This is an oft-used attempt to gain credibility, by proclaiming scientific consistency. And you have offered none.

When a body is cremated, it has undergone combustion. The result is not "dust of the earth" as the Bible states, it's ash. During the process of combustion, carbon-carbon bonds are broken and replaced with carbon-oxygen bonds. The molecules themselves are changed dramatically, and the energy levels required to maintain the molecular integrity is dramatically lowered. A carbon-carbon bond requires more energy to maintain than a carbon-oxygen bond, which is why energy (in the form of heat and light), are released in through the process of combustion. So the result is ash, not dust.

Thirdly, we are not composed of the dust of the earth. If anything, it is more correct to state that we are composed of star dust. So is the earth, for that matter. But biological bodies have a far different concentration of elements than does the "dust of the Earth". There are 92 known naturally occurring elements in the Earth. Three of these were produced by big-bang. Twenty-three of them are produced by fusion in the core of stars. The rest are created in the destruction of stars (super-novas). Yet the Bible makes the hilarious claim that Earth existed (Gen 1:1), before stars (Gen 1:16). And this is just one place where the Bible demonstrates it's lack of veracity.

Your reference to "Job" is a result of ignoring what the Bible says, and replacing it with what you want it to say. The phrase "thou hast made me as the clay", means by the same process, not to the same result. If I were to say, "I made the icing flowers as I made the icing leaves", I'm stating that I used the same technique, the same methods. I'm not saying that it resulted in the same thing.

I find it entertaining when I see people pick a single statement from the creation sequence in the Bible, and proclaim it to be "scientific", while totally ignoring all of the scientifically refuted claims made in the Genesis creation story. I've already mentioned that it claims Earth existed before the sun and stars, and explained why that isn't true (earth is composed of elements fused by stars). But it goes on to tell us that Earth was formed covered in water, but devoid of an atmosphere (Gen 1:2 / Gen 1:6-7). Without atmospheric pressure, water vaporizes at an explosive rate. By the time the next "day" comes along where God creates the atmosphere (firmament), the water will all be gone. Then it tells us that the water is liquid and flowing (Gen 1:9), even before the sun exists. Without the sun, Earth would be only slightly warmer than space, and the mean temperature of space is 454-degrees below zero, Fahrenheit. The water would definitely be frozen solid. And then we come to Gen 1:11-12, where the Bible (in all of it's lack of wisdom), proclaims that plants were thriving on the Earth, still before the sun exists, meaning those plants would have to survive 24-hours in cryogenic temperatures. It even names fruit trees, and fruit trees are known for being extremely sensitive to cold. They die quickly at temperatures hundreds of degrees warmer than the Earth according to Genesis.

Psssst! <whisper:> Hey, Beastt...

Should we also include all the scientific reasons why the "miracle" of the sun "standing still" for 24 hours for Joshua would have been catastrophic to the earth and all life on it?

Do you think explaining man's inability to breathe methane, for three days, and remain alive would be sufficient to hint why the Jonah story is unbelievable, or would we need to toss in the information about just how caustic digestive "juices" would be?

How about we mention all the "scientific" reasons that the Noah's ark tale is not only completely implausible, but downright laughable?

Would it be "over the top" if we demonstrate to him that the Hebrews were NEVER slaves, in Egypt?

Do you think it would hurt his feelings if we let him know that bats are not "birds," but "rodents?"

Must....
Not.....
Mock.....

Mocking is playground behavior. The scientific stuff, that sounds good. Brainy is as brainy does.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 5:02:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 12:51:03 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 12:10:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:53:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:38:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Or you could just not try making the bible out to be a science textbook.

Where the Bible makes scientifically testable claims, (and it makes many such claims), it is subject to scientific falsifiability.

Sure, if you confuse literary genres. It'd be like trying to find the material evidence of his existence left behind by the prodigal son.

That's strictly incorrect. When the Bible claims that Earth existed before the sun and stars, that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun existed, that Earth was covered in water before the atmosphere existed and that Earth was covered in liquid water while the temperature was less than 400-degrees below zero, those are all scientifically falsifiable claims. All of the evasions in the world don't change that.

It's not an evasion if it's not actually meant to describe how the world actually came into being. Which is why I said yes you can point out the "scientific inconsistencies" in it if you confuse literary genres. But that misses the point of what Genesis is trying to do.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 5:53:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 5:02:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2014 12:51:03 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 12:10:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:53:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:38:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Or you could just not try making the bible out to be a science textbook.

Where the Bible makes scientifically testable claims, (and it makes many such claims), it is subject to scientific falsifiability.

Sure, if you confuse literary genres. It'd be like trying to find the material evidence of his existence left behind by the prodigal son.

That's strictly incorrect. When the Bible claims that Earth existed before the sun and stars, that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun existed, that Earth was covered in water before the atmosphere existed and that Earth was covered in liquid water while the temperature was less than 400-degrees below zero, those are all scientifically falsifiable claims. All of the evasions in the world don't change that.

It's not an evasion if it's not actually meant to describe how the world actually came into being. Which is why I said yes you can point out the "scientific inconsistencies" in it if you confuse literary genres. But that misses the point of what Genesis is trying to do.

You seriously don't see the evasion? It's a blow-by-blow, step-by-step chronology of events, and you can't seem to accept that it's wrong... it's just wrong. And to claim it isn't intended to be correct is ridiculous when it's claimed to be the word of God - the creator of the universe - telling us how it happened, and yet giving a completely incorrect narrative. It's wrong. That's all there really is to it. To claim it's not what it claims to be is just running from a reality you don't wish to accept.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 6:02:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 4:38:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/12/2014 4:13:49 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM, Bendido wrote:
They alleged that the creation of Adam is an "anti-scientific nonsense", and God did not create Adam from a handful of dust, like the Bible says. To my readers, see how these blatant liars are "wrestling" the words of the Bible. Their allegation and their pre-conceived idea are not written in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible can you find a verse that Adam was created by God from a handful of dust. What is written is recorded in Genesis 2:7, which says:
...

Where to start... okay. The phrase "scientific proof" is a dead give-away. Science does not subscribe to the subjective concept of "proofs". This is an oft-used attempt to gain credibility, by proclaiming scientific consistency. And you have offered none.

When a body is cremated, it has undergone combustion. The result is not "dust of the earth" as the Bible states, it's ash. During the process of combustion, carbon-carbon bonds are broken and replaced with carbon-oxygen bonds. The molecules themselves are changed dramatically, and the energy levels required to maintain the molecular integrity is dramatically lowered. A carbon-carbon bond requires more energy to maintain than a carbon-oxygen bond, which is why energy (in the form of heat and light), are released in through the process of combustion. So the result is ash, not dust.

Thirdly, we are not composed of the dust of the earth. If anything, it is more correct to state that we are composed of star dust. So is the earth, for that matter. But biological bodies have a far different concentration of elements than does the "dust of the Earth". There are 92 known naturally occurring elements in the Earth. Three of these were produced by big-bang. Twenty-three of them are produced by fusion in the core of stars. The rest are created in the destruction of stars (super-novas). Yet the Bible makes the hilarious claim that Earth existed (Gen 1:1), before stars (Gen 1:16). And this is just one place where the Bible demonstrates it's lack of veracity.

Your reference to "Job" is a result of ignoring what the Bible says, and replacing it with what you want it to say. The phrase "thou hast made me as the clay", means by the same process, not to the same result. If I were to say, "I made the icing flowers as I made the icing leaves", I'm stating that I used the same technique, the same methods. I'm not saying that it resulted in the same thing.

I find it entertaining when I see people pick a single statement from the creation sequence in the Bible, and proclaim it to be "scientific", while totally ignoring all of the scientifically refuted claims made in the Genesis creation story. I've already mentioned that it claims Earth existed before the sun and stars, and explained why that isn't true (earth is composed of elements fused by stars). But it goes on to tell us that Earth was formed covered in water, but devoid of an atmosphere (Gen 1:2 / Gen 1:6-7). Without atmospheric pressure, water vaporizes at an explosive rate. By the time the next "day" comes along where God creates the atmosphere (firmament), the water will all be gone. Then it tells us that the water is liquid and flowing (Gen 1:9), even before the sun exists. Without the sun, Earth would be only slightly warmer than space, and the mean temperature of space is 454-degrees below zero, Fahrenheit. The water would definitely be frozen solid. And then we come to Gen 1:11-12, where the Bible (in all of it's lack of wisdom), proclaims that plants were thriving on the Earth, still before the sun exists, meaning those plants would have to survive 24-hours in cryogenic temperatures. It even names fruit trees, and fruit trees are known for being extremely sensitive to cold. They die quickly at temperatures hundreds of degrees warmer than the Earth according to Genesis.

Psssst! <whisper:> Hey, Beastt...

Should we also include all the scientific reasons why the "miracle" of the sun "standing still" for 24 hours for Joshua would have been catastrophic to the earth and all life on it?

Do you think explaining man's inability to breathe methane, for three days, and remain alive would be sufficient to hint why the Jonah story is unbelievable, or would we need to toss in the information about just how caustic digestive "juices" would be?

How about we mention all the "scientific" reasons that the Noah's ark tale is not only completely implausible, but downright laughable?

Would it be "over the top" if we demonstrate to him that the Hebrews were NEVER slaves, in Egypt?

Do you think it would hurt his feelings if we let him know that bats are not "birds," but "rodents?"

Must....
Not.....
Mock.....
And of course the point to make is that it's not mocking simply to point out claims which are purely false. But maybe we can get him to discuss one or two... or three at a time. Because until he's willing to discuss them he'll just hide himself behind the wall of insisting to himself that it must all make sense somehow. That's what most Christians tend to do. They satisfy themselves with "well, somehow it all works out to be God's word". And until they've discussed it thoroughly, they don't understand that it is quite simply wrong.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 8:55:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM, Bendido wrote:
They alleged that the creation of Adam is an "anti-scientific nonsense", and God did not create Adam from a handful of dust, like the Bible says. To my readers, see how these blatant liars are "wrestling" the words of the Bible. Their allegation and their pre-conceived idea are not written in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible can you find a verse that Adam was created by God from a handful of dust. What is written is recorded in Genesis 2:7, which says:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

While it is true that God created man from the dust of the ground, the phrase "handful of dust" is absent in the verse! It is conceived it the minds of these perverts. Be that as it may, the information in the Bible is scientific! Granting, without accepting, that there is such a thing as a "handful of dust", whose hands will be the measuring hands for the dust that God will use in the formation of Adam? People who cremate the dead have an idea of how much dust will be left of the human body after cremation. I am sure it is not a sack of dust; but very close to a handful " depending on the hands that holds them. And why is it scientific? God made man from the dust; and when his body dies it decomposes and turns again to dust.

(Genesis 3:19) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

human_body.jpg

What are the scientific proof that man"s body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says? The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth"s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.

mineral_graph.jpg

The ignorance of these "imaginary people" in what the Bible says betrays their alleged intelligence and knowledge in science. Of course, the human body is not made up only of dust, but God mixed the dust to water to produce clay.


(Job 10:9) "Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?"

(Romans 9:20-21) "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"

The mixture is clay, understandably contains more water than dust. Who says that the information in the Bible is scientifically nonsense? They are the one"s that are nonsensical, and not the Bible!

The exact proportion of the minerals and materials, if maintained, make up a healthy human body (http://www.emory.edu...). Excesses in these materials will cause disorders and diseases. Excess of aluminum, for example, and iron, will be toxic for the human body. The proportions of the abundance of the 59 elements on the earths crust, is amazingly represented in its presence in the human body. Who says that the Bible is not scientific? These "imaginary and anti-scientific people"!

The "breath of life", also known as the tree of life, book of life, Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, Jacob, Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Son of God, Word of the Lord, Light of Men, etc. is our created invisible existence as His people, beasts, etc.

Man needs a flesh and objects in this world to experience life with. Otherwise, man would be just a breath ( thoughts ) of God.

Psalm 94
11: the LORD, knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 10:10:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 6:02:47 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 4:38:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/12/2014 4:13:49 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:58:54 PM, Bendido wrote:
They alleged that the creation of Adam is an "anti-scientific nonsense", and God did not create Adam from a handful of dust, like the Bible says. To my readers, see how these blatant liars are "wrestling" the words of the Bible. Their allegation and their pre-conceived idea are not written in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible can you find a verse that Adam was created by God from a handful of dust. What is written is recorded in Genesis 2:7, which says:
...

Where to start... okay. The phrase "scientific proof" is a dead give-away. Science does not subscribe to the subjective concept of "proofs". This is an oft-used attempt to gain credibility, by proclaiming scientific consistency. And you have offered none.

When a body is cremated, it has undergone combustion. The result is not "dust of the earth" as the Bible states, it's ash. During the process of combustion, carbon-carbon bonds are broken and replaced with carbon-oxygen bonds. The molecules themselves are changed dramatically, and the energy levels required to maintain the molecular integrity is dramatically lowered. A carbon-carbon bond requires more energy to maintain than a carbon-oxygen bond, which is why energy (in the form of heat and light), are released in through the process of combustion. So the result is ash, not dust.

Thirdly, we are not composed of the dust of the earth. If anything, it is more correct to state that we are composed of star dust. So is the earth, for that matter. But biological bodies have a far different concentration of elements than does the "dust of the Earth". There are 92 known naturally occurring elements in the Earth. Three of these were produced by big-bang. Twenty-three of them are produced by fusion in the core of stars. The rest are created in the destruction of stars (super-novas). Yet the Bible makes the hilarious claim that Earth existed (Gen 1:1), before stars (Gen 1:16). And this is just one place where the Bible demonstrates it's lack of veracity.

Your reference to "Job" is a result of ignoring what the Bible says, and replacing it with what you want it to say. The phrase "thou hast made me as the clay", means by the same process, not to the same result. If I were to say, "I made the icing flowers as I made the icing leaves", I'm stating that I used the same technique, the same methods. I'm not saying that it resulted in the same thing.

I find it entertaining when I see people pick a single statement from the creation sequence in the Bible, and proclaim it to be "scientific", while totally ignoring all of the scientifically refuted claims made in the Genesis creation story. I've already mentioned that it claims Earth existed before the sun and stars, and explained why that isn't true (earth is composed of elements fused by stars). But it goes on to tell us that Earth was formed covered in water, but devoid of an atmosphere (Gen 1:2 / Gen 1:6-7). Without atmospheric pressure, water vaporizes at an explosive rate. By the time the next "day" comes along where God creates the atmosphere (firmament), the water will all be gone. Then it tells us that the water is liquid and flowing (Gen 1:9), even before the sun exists. Without the sun, Earth would be only slightly warmer than space, and the mean temperature of space is 454-degrees below zero, Fahrenheit. The water would definitely be frozen solid. And then we come to Gen 1:11-12, where the Bible (in all of it's lack of wisdom), proclaims that plants were thriving on the Earth, still before the sun exists, meaning those plants would have to survive 24-hours in cryogenic temperatures. It even names fruit trees, and fruit trees are known for being extremely sensitive to cold. They die quickly at temperatures hundreds of degrees warmer than the Earth according to Genesis.

Psssst! <whisper:> Hey, Beastt...

Should we also include all the scientific reasons why the "miracle" of the sun "standing still" for 24 hours for Joshua would have been catastrophic to the earth and all life on it?

Do you think explaining man's inability to breathe methane, for three days, and remain alive would be sufficient to hint why the Jonah story is unbelievable, or would we need to toss in the information about just how caustic digestive "juices" would be?

How about we mention all the "scientific" reasons that the Noah's ark tale is not only completely implausible, but downright laughable?

Would it be "over the top" if we demonstrate to him that the Hebrews were NEVER slaves, in Egypt?

Do you think it would hurt his feelings if we let him know that bats are not "birds," but "rodents?"

Must....
Not.....
Mock.....
And of course the point to make is that it's not mocking simply to point out claims which are purely false. But maybe we can get him to discuss one or two... or three at a time. Because until he's willing to discuss them he'll just hide himself behind the wall of insisting to himself that it must all make sense somehow. That's what most Christians tend to do. They satisfy themselves with "well, somehow it all works out to be God's word". And until they've discussed it thoroughly, they don't understand that it is quite simply wrong.

No, but the temptation to mock is always there, when the believer clings so tenaciously to something that is so GLARINGLY false, inaccurate, or just plain DUMB. It cannot be an "all-knowing, all-perfect" deity's word, if it is riddled with inconsistencies, falsehoods, lies, and atrociously immoral edicts. This does not even come close to indicating an evil deity. It indicates that the people who wrote the book(s) were looking for a way to justify the actions that they KNEW were immoral, but they wanted to commit them, anyway. They wanted the land, resources, and virgins, and they knew it was immoral to simply TAKE those things, by force. What better way to justify it than by making up an all-powerful deity, whose word could not be disobeyed, and attributing the action to his mandate? This point can be made over and over, but we are still accused of "hating god" (despite his nonexistence), or "rejecting god" because we are "stubborn," and we "don't want to obey."

The utter ridiculousness of the claims aren't bad enough, but the projection of "motivations" must be cast upon those that reject the claims in order to circumvent WHY the claims are rejected. I often find it difficult to refrain from mockery...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 5:15:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 10:10:19 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/12/2014 6:02:47 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 4:38:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

Psssst! <whisper:> Hey, Beastt...

Should we also include all the scientific reasons why the "miracle" of the sun "standing still" for 24 hours for Joshua would have been catastrophic to the earth and all life on it?

Do you think explaining man's inability to breathe methane, for three days, and remain alive would be sufficient to hint why the Jonah story is unbelievable, or would we need to toss in the information about just how caustic digestive "juices" would be?

How about we mention all the "scientific" reasons that the Noah's ark tale is not only completely implausible, but downright laughable?

Would it be "over the top" if we demonstrate to him that the Hebrews were NEVER slaves, in Egypt?

Do you think it would hurt his feelings if we let him know that bats are not "birds," but "rodents?"

Must....
Not.....
Mock.....
And of course the point to make is that it's not mocking simply to point out claims which are purely false. But maybe we can get him to discuss one or two... or three at a time. Because until he's willing to discuss them he'll just hide himself behind the wall of insisting to himself that it must all make sense somehow. That's what most Christians tend to do. They satisfy themselves with "well, somehow it all works out to be God's word". And until they've discussed it thoroughly, they don't understand that it is quite simply wrong.

No, but the temptation to mock is always there, when the believer clings so tenaciously to something that is so GLARINGLY false, inaccurate, or just plain DUMB. It cannot be an "all-knowing, all-perfect" deity's word, if it is riddled with inconsistencies, falsehoods, lies, and atrociously immoral edicts. This does not even come close to indicating an evil deity. It indicates that the people who wrote the book(s) were looking for a way to justify the actions that they KNEW were immoral, but they wanted to commit them, anyway. They wanted the land, resources, and virgins, and they knew it was immoral to simply TAKE those things, by force. What better way to justify it than by making up an all-powerful deity, whose word could not be disobeyed, and attributing the action to his mandate? This point can be made over and over, but we are still accused of "hating god" (despite his nonexistence), or "rejecting god" because we are "stubborn," and we "don't want to obey."

The utter ridiculousness of the claims aren't bad enough, but the projection of "motivations" must be cast upon those that reject the claims in order to circumvent WHY the claims are rejected. I often find it difficult to refrain from mockery...

And the ridiculousness of the claims is what causes so many theists to jump to the conclusion that they, the scriptures, or their God is being mocked. How do you mention that the Bible makes claims about witches, zombies, giants, wizards, dragons, sea monsters and unicorns, without making it sound ridiculous. It can't be done. But it's ridiculous on it's own, not because it's being mocked.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 5:42:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 5:15:54 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/13/2014 10:10:19 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/12/2014 6:02:47 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 4:38:21 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:

Psssst! <whisper:> Hey, Beastt...

Should we also include all the scientific reasons why the "miracle" of the sun "standing still" for 24 hours for Joshua would have been catastrophic to the earth and all life on it?

Do you think explaining man's inability to breathe methane, for three days, and remain alive would be sufficient to hint why the Jonah story is unbelievable, or would we need to toss in the information about just how caustic digestive "juices" would be?

How about we mention all the "scientific" reasons that the Noah's ark tale is not only completely implausible, but downright laughable?

Would it be "over the top" if we demonstrate to him that the Hebrews were NEVER slaves, in Egypt?

Do you think it would hurt his feelings if we let him know that bats are not "birds," but "rodents?"

Must....
Not.....
Mock.....
And of course the point to make is that it's not mocking simply to point out claims which are purely false. But maybe we can get him to discuss one or two... or three at a time. Because until he's willing to discuss them he'll just hide himself behind the wall of insisting to himself that it must all make sense somehow. That's what most Christians tend to do. They satisfy themselves with "well, somehow it all works out to be God's word". And until they've discussed it thoroughly, they don't understand that it is quite simply wrong.

No, but the temptation to mock is always there, when the believer clings so tenaciously to something that is so GLARINGLY false, inaccurate, or just plain DUMB. It cannot be an "all-knowing, all-perfect" deity's word, if it is riddled with inconsistencies, falsehoods, lies, and atrociously immoral edicts. This does not even come close to indicating an evil deity. It indicates that the people who wrote the book(s) were looking for a way to justify the actions that they KNEW were immoral, but they wanted to commit them, anyway. They wanted the land, resources, and virgins, and they knew it was immoral to simply TAKE those things, by force. What better way to justify it than by making up an all-powerful deity, whose word could not be disobeyed, and attributing the action to his mandate? This point can be made over and over, but we are still accused of "hating god" (despite his nonexistence), or "rejecting god" because we are "stubborn," and we "don't want to obey."

The utter ridiculousness of the claims aren't bad enough, but the projection of "motivations" must be cast upon those that reject the claims in order to circumvent WHY the claims are rejected. I often find it difficult to refrain from mockery...

And the ridiculousness of the claims is what causes so many theists to jump to the conclusion that they, the scriptures, or their God is being mocked. How do you mention that the Bible makes claims about witches, zombies, giants, wizards, dragons, sea monsters and unicorns, without making it sound ridiculous. It can't be done. But it's ridiculous on it's own, not because it's being mocked.

Quite honestly, with some of the more rabidly zealous and anti-atheist posters, I really don't think that this is even considered. They would hate us, no matter how innocuous our posts were. They can't see past their own noses, and refuse to look at the wickedness for which the church(es) has/have been responsible. Their feelings, however, MUST be taken into consideration every time we post something... at least as far as they are concerned. Any action, statement, or position they wish to take about atheists/agnostics is perfectly justified because they "have god on their side..." We, however, are (for some unspoken reason) obligated to make our objections is the most PC way imaginable, or we are being "militant." I often laugh at some of the more vacuous mentalities that post about how evil we are, and never once look at their own behavior, or the stupidity of their own posts. They assume the moral high ground, no matter what, and we are to defer to their judgment on all things religious, because we don't know their faith as well as they do. This despite the fact that every study performed in the last thirty years demonstrates that atheists/agnostics know more about the "holy" scriptures than the mainstream religious.

The more ridiculous, the more irrational, the more laughably unrealistic, the harder they seem to cling to it. Something, eventually, has GOT to give...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 9:19:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 5:53:14 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 5:02:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2014 12:51:03 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 12:10:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:53:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:38:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Or you could just not try making the bible out to be a science textbook.

Where the Bible makes scientifically testable claims, (and it makes many such claims), it is subject to scientific falsifiability.

Sure, if you confuse literary genres. It'd be like trying to find the material evidence of his existence left behind by the prodigal son.

That's strictly incorrect. When the Bible claims that Earth existed before the sun and stars, that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun existed, that Earth was covered in water before the atmosphere existed and that Earth was covered in liquid water while the temperature was less than 400-degrees below zero, those are all scientifically falsifiable claims. All of the evasions in the world don't change that.

It's not an evasion if it's not actually meant to describe how the world actually came into being. Which is why I said yes you can point out the "scientific inconsistencies" in it if you confuse literary genres. But that misses the point of what Genesis is trying to do.

You seriously don't see the evasion? It's a blow-by-blow, step-by-step chronology of events, and you can't seem to accept that it's wrong... it's just wrong. And to claim it isn't intended to be correct is ridiculous when it's claimed to be the word of God - the creator of the universe - telling us how it happened, and yet giving a completely incorrect narrative. It's wrong. That's all there really is to it. To claim it's not what it claims to be is just running from a reality you don't wish to accept.

...so again you're confusing the literary genre. So we're just back at square one. And stop putting words in my mouth - I didn't say it wasn't intended to be "correct" - I said, in so much words, that it's not meant to be a narrative in the vein of modern history or science textbooks. fun fact: things can be "correct" without having to conform to modern expectations of what a sacred text should be doing.

I also don't think you understand what Christians mean by "word of God".

What reality is it that I don't wish to accept? Please tell me more about how you can mind read.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 9:26:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 9:19:31 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I also don't think you understand what Christians mean by "word of God".

Would that be the bible?
Or do you have a different definition for christians?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:03:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 9:19:31 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2014 5:53:14 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 5:02:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2014 12:51:03 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 12:10:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:53:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:38:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Or you could just not try making the bible out to be a science textbook.

Where the Bible makes scientifically testable claims, (and it makes many such claims), it is subject to scientific falsifiability.

Sure, if you confuse literary genres. It'd be like trying to find the material evidence of his existence left behind by the prodigal son.

That's strictly incorrect. When the Bible claims that Earth existed before the sun and stars, that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun existed, that Earth was covered in water before the atmosphere existed and that Earth was covered in liquid water while the temperature was less than 400-degrees below zero, those are all scientifically falsifiable claims. All of the evasions in the world don't change that.

It's not an evasion if it's not actually meant to describe how the world actually came into being. Which is why I said yes you can point out the "scientific inconsistencies" in it if you confuse literary genres. But that misses the point of what Genesis is trying to do.

You seriously don't see the evasion? It's a blow-by-blow, step-by-step chronology of events, and you can't seem to accept that it's wrong... it's just wrong. And to claim it isn't intended to be correct is ridiculous when it's claimed to be the word of God - the creator of the universe - telling us how it happened, and yet giving a completely incorrect narrative. It's wrong. That's all there really is to it. To claim it's not what it claims to be is just running from a reality you don't wish to accept.

...so again you're confusing the literary genre.
Not at all. You're just ignoring everything I've said to jump back and make the very same claim I've just refuted. If a book about a fictional race car driver tells us that the carburetor feeds a high voltage, low amperage current to the spark plugs, it's simply wrong. It doesn't matter that it's not a mechanic's work manual, it's still wrong.

So we're just back at square one. And stop putting words in my mouth - I didn't say it wasn't intended to be "correct" - I said, in so much words, that it's not meant to be a narrative in the vein of modern history or science textbooks. fun fact: things can be "correct" without having to conform to modern expectations of what a sacred text should be doing.
Things cannot be correct when they're incorrect. And claiming that the Earth existed before stars IS WRONG. Claiming plants existed before the sun, is wrong. These things are wrong. And any attempt to claim that they're not is simply willful dishonesty.

I also don't think you understand what Christians mean by "word of God".
You make it sound as thought you believe all Christians mean the same thing. I dare you to fine a Christian who means the same thing each time they use the phrase. Christians are hopping all over the spectrum of meaning for the phrase, in an attempt to stay a step ahead of demonstrated reality.

What reality is it that I don't wish to accept? Please tell me more about how you can mind read.
I don't have to mind read. When you can read a narration of creation which is just plain factually incorrect, and try to squirm out from under that reality by proclaiming that it's a genre which excludes it from the need for accuracy, you're demonstrating that you don't wish to accept that it's wrong. The only genre which need not conform to accuracy and true claims are those covered under fiction. So unless you want to proclaim that the Bible is a work of fiction, you're stuck with the fact that it is wrong.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire