Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Liar liar pants on fire
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What? Where is the lie?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There you go with your false narrative again.
Just because you do not understand the sciences does not mean that others do not. Yes, since you do not understand the sciences you would have to "blindly accept what science feeds them". Others understand it enough so that they can confirm what they hear.
This is why I try to go over the basics of science with science deniers. Yet for some reason they are afraid to even learn the basics. All that they can do is to make false assumptions based upon their own rather extreme ignorance.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Speaking as a former Christian myself, I understand what it's like to be afraid of letting go of your deeply cherished beliefs in the biblical God and the Bible. I was a creationist when I was a Christian, but I was never extreme in my belief in creationism or promoted it while I was evangelizing or street preaching. I never considered it to be a critical topic to preach. I was more concerned about preaching salvation, so pushing my creationist beliefs was never something I was concerned about. As I explained in another thread, I essentially studied my way out of believing the Bible, which led me to further study and research in and out of Christianity. It ultimately led me to renounce my belief in God and faith in Jesus. Other circumstances also contributed to my final decision to renounce my personal belief in God and abandon Christianity, but I essentially studied my way out of believing in the Bible and God.
I read and studied the Bible numerous times during the thirty years I was a Christian, which included extensive study of the Bible and Christian theology while training to be an evangelism team leader and extensively studying the Bible and Christian theology while assisting my nephew in his extended theological studies to become an ordained minister. A few weeks after I decided to renounce my faith, my nephew called me to inform me that he had made the same decision to renounce his faith after extensively studying the Bible with me. He also studied his way out of believing in the Bible and God while he was studying to earn a Master of Theological Studies (MTS) degree in order to become an ordained minister. He's now an agnostic, like myself.
McBell
Unbound
Then it should be easy enough to show your math.
Please show your math.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
No it isn't really. Knowledge is knowledge. Science or rather the scientific method, is a methodical process of objective investigation using mathematical models supported by empirically derived evidence. To create theoretical frameworks. That are independently verifiable and testable. Mostly.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Look it up in Meriam-Webster the definition and the thesaurus entry
Also look up its etymology.
Science means knowledge.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
I am good. 25 years as a chemist, man and boy. I know what science is, what it isn't and what the difference is.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Same. It's a very defensible position bruh.
If you think that’s what I meant then you really are slow on the uptake as your posts repeatedly demonstrate.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
I've got a copy of the Vulgate in original latin. However I can't read half of it. Nice though. Lots of illustrations. Plus a few additional books too. That you don't get in the abridged modern english KJV and NIV etc..
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The King James Bible is just fine.
Those additional books are not part of the Bible.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, it is only one definition and by context of the discussion, the wrong one.
You make it look as if you do not even understand how to use a dictionary properly. You do not get to pick the definition that suits your purposes best. You have to choose the definition that best fits the context.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, but the Bible is just a book. It does not help you.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Not even close. BTW, bat is last. Just listing fowl which at the time was any flying animal but nit insects.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Well, the Vulgate came first, translated from original hebrew and greek. Unlike the KJV et al, which was translated solely from greek. So if anything. The KJ is just missing a few books.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It doesn't matter if bat is last. You were still shown to be wrong about the Bible by everyone.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The word fowl at the time always meant a flying animal but not insects.
Haeckel’s drawings were not accurate, yet his drawings are still used for evolution. Why the fraud?
Nebraska man was not a man. Why the fraud?
The Milken experiment is a disaster for evolutionists. Why the deception.
Beware of the old con “the building blocks of life”. Why the deception?
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Why not, when you can become famous and rich, win a nobel prize maybe. Shock horror, some scientists are actually charlatans!
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Not just Nebraska man.
Haeckel’s drawings were not accurate, yet his drawings are still used for evolution. Why the fraud?
Nebraska man was not a man. Why the fraud?
The Milken experiment is a disaster for evolutionists. Why the deception.
Beware of the old con “the building blocks of life”. Why the deception?