Is This Evidence Of Satan? Did He Write An Antibible? Is It Evolution?

[james bond]

College and some graduate work.. I also had an advantage in growing up in a highly educated community.

What degrees did you get? I got an MBA and BS in computer science and MIS.

 

[sooda]

What degrees did you get? I got an MBA and BS in computer science and MIS.

I figured your education was in computer science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, you're wrong again . What do you have?

I'm intelligent and have degrees enough to read what my alma mater put out and buy it and then compare it to what its opposition says. I just thought the Bible theory was more credible and described in detail. The big bang theory lacks too much detail and violates the laws of physics. There is no evidence for abiogenesis.

Now, I'm not wanting to get into the above as it is not the point of my thread.

You may have degrees, but none of them are in the sciences. At best you may have an engineering degree, they can apply basic science, but they very often do not understand how science works. That is shown by your claim that the Big Bang Theory violates the laws of science. Which "laws" would those be? And there is quite a bit of evidence for abigoenesis. This tells us that you almost certainly do not understand the nature of evidence.

 

[james bond]

If you mean that paleontologists proved beyond a reasonable doubt that birds are dinosaurs, you are right. Why does that upset you?

Not really because paleontologists are wrong and its not true. Today's science is fake science and stuff in museums are lies.

It would upset me with Jurassic Park. They try to be scientific, but they should not put feathers on T-Rex and the other dinos. They have reptilian skin. We'll have to see what happens in future episodes, but think they'll follow the fake science.

Anyway, I'm glad this thread has upset you. I can tell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What degrees did you get? I got an MBA and BS in computer science and MIS.

Ooh, looky. I was right. No real science education at all.

Only minimal physics is in the prereqs for a computer science degree. None is needed for an MBA.

 

[james bond]

You may have degrees, but none of them are in the sciences. At best you may have an engineering degree, they can apply basic science, but they very often do not understand how science works. That is shown by your claim that the Big Bang Theory violates the laws of science. Which "laws" would those be? And there is quite a bit of evidence for abigoenesis. This tells us that you almost certainly do not understand the nature of evidence.

If I went into the hard sciences, then I think I would've done okay in chemistry.

You're revealing yourself. I doubt you know much about science. What degrees do you have?

 

[sooda]

Not really because paleontologists are wrong and its not true. Today's science is fake science and stuff in museums are lies.

It would upset me with Jurassic Park. They try to be scientific, but they should not put feathers on T-Rex and the other dinos. They have reptilian skin. We'll have to see what happens in future episodes, but think they'll follow the fake science.

Anyway, I'm glad this thread has upset you. I can tell.

Sweet Jesus , Jurassic Park is a fiction .. its a bloody MOVIE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really because paleontologists are wrong and its not true. Today's science is fake science and stuff in museums are lies.

It would upset me with Jurassic Park. They try to be scientific, but they should not put feathers on T-Rex and the other dinos. They have reptilian skin. We'll have to see what happens in future episodes, but think they'll follow the fake science.

Anyway, I'm glad this thread has upset you. I can tell.

Well you are only partially right. Adult T-Rex's probably did not have feathers. I could link articles for you. But there is no doubt that other dinosaurs did have feathers. Dinosaurs came in all sizes. Feathers were originally apparently more for temperature control. Small dinosaurs needed the insulation. Large dinosaurs, not so much.

Just because you refuse to understand the science does not make it fake. Scientists can support their claims. We know that you cannot support yours.

 

[sooda]

If I went into the hard sciences, then I think I would've done okay in chemistry.

You're revealing yourself. I doubt you know much about science. What degrees do you have?

1. Were Dinosaurs Warm-Blooded? New Study Fuels Debate | Live ...
   www.livescience.com/51162-dinosaurs-warm-blooded...
   Dinosaurs were once thought to be the cold-blooded kings of the Mesozoic era. But new research on their growth rates suggests the prehistoric beasts grew just as fast as mammals, indicating they ...
   
   
2. Were dinosaurs warm-blooded or cold-blooded?
   www.usgs.gov/faqs/were-dinosaurs-warm-blooded-or...
   Scientists have conflicting opinions on this subject. Some paleontologists think that all dinosaurs were 'warm-blooded' in the same sense that modern birds and mammals are: that is, they had rapid metabolic rates. Other scientists think it unlikely that any dinosaur could have had a rapid metabolic ...
   

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I went into the hard sciences, then I think I would've done okay in chemistry.

You're revealing yourself. I doubt you know much about science. What degrees do you have?

Just a bachelor of science in geology. Still I know that I clearly understand the sciences, the scientific method, and scientific evidence far better than you do.

Why do you think that you would have done okay in chemistry? The cookbook chemistry that you may have done is not representative of the science.

 

[james bond]

Sweet Jesus , Jurassic Park is a fiction .. its a bloody MOVIE.

Am I supposed to go against the museums, mainstream science today, and all. The real science has been systematically eliminated from today's science. Thus, we get the fake science of evolution starting with no God; it's atheist science. And from there, we find evidence of Satan as per this thread. That said, I wouldn't bring up Satan if there was no credible, scholarly Bible, but there is and science backs it up.

 

[james bond]

1. Were Dinosaurs Warm-Blooded? New Study Fuels Debate | Live ...
   www.livescience.com/51162-dinosaurs-warm-blooded...
   Dinosaurs were once thought to be the cold-blooded kings of the Mesozoic era. But new research on their growth rates suggests the prehistoric beasts grew just as fast as mammals, indicating they ...
   
   
2. Were dinosaurs warm-blooded or cold-blooded?
   www.usgs.gov/faqs/were-dinosaurs-warm-blooded-or...
   Scientists have conflicting opinions on this subject. Some paleontologists think that all dinosaurs were 'warm-blooded' in the same sense that modern birds and mammals are: that is, they had rapid metabolic rates. Other scientists think it unlikely that any dinosaur could have had a rapid metabolic ...

Did you post or is this post in creation and evolution?

 

[sooda]

Did you post or is this post in creation and evolution?

Some dinosaurs had feathers some did not. Too much for you to grasp?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Am I supposed to go against the museums, mainstream science today, and all. The real science has been systematically eliminated from today's science. Thus, we get the fake science of evolution starting with no God; it's atheist science. And from there, we find evidence of Satan as per this thread. That said, I wouldn't bring up Satan if there was no credible, scholarly Bible, but there is and science backs it up.

And this is the sort of claim that only the totally ignorant of science would make. Seriously do you think that there is some vast conspiracy out there? Scientists are the most skeptical people in the world. They have to be able to support their claims. You are relying on a book written by people that had no knowledge of the sciences or of much of anything outside of their rather small villages. You might as well go and ask Dolores or Pete down the street on how they think that the universe came about.

 

[Altfish]

I would write, "Believe in the Bible. It's the truth."

I never claimed reading evolution turns you into the Satan. Just pointed out that stuff written from the 1850s contradict everything from a book started from the first century. To me, it isn't a coincidence. There is some kind of intelligence behind it.

Even if you did read both, then it's still your choice or faith in what to believe is what makes the difference. It's entirely up to you.

In my case, I believed in evolution after reading -- Understanding Evolution. However, I ended up comparing both from 2012 (born again Christian then) and thought the Bible was telling the truth. The scientific method favored the Bible. Evolution was based on historical or forensic, i.e. circumstantial evidence.

I don't think I ever said that reading evolution turns you into Satan.
1850's were a time of great advancements in science and engineering. Science from that era didn't just contradict The Bible, it contradicted previous science. But that is good, science advances, religion stands still.
I don't believe the scientific method favours the bible but if that's what you think ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some dinosaurs had feathers some did not. Too much for you to grasp?

Creationists tend to be all or nothing thinkers. They live and die by the black and white fallacy. The problem with that is that it refutes their beliefs totally. By their standards God cannot exist.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I said that I didn't think little, tiny birds evolved from great, big, gigantic dinosaurs

The way you italicized "evolved" in your post here makes me believe that you think that evolution is used to describe when a creature gets bigger/better. This is your brain being stuck in Pokemon land, and you are entirely incorrect in your thinking on that point if you think that "evolution" necessarily means that a creature gets bigger/stronger/faster/etc. This is NOT the case. Understand this. And here is an example to fix your broken, broken perspective:

There are fish that live in caves who end up not needing their eyes, and therefore their eyes glass over and become useless - even though they still have them. These fish have evolved to suit their new environment. Even though one of the changes they have experienced is to lose their eyesight. That is still evolution. The fish didn't get bigger, and that feature of them (eyesight) did not get better. Others may have (such as hearing, etc.) but the change in eyes alone is still an example of evolution. Do you understand this? If not, then I suggest you stop talking about evolution, because you are bound to continue to sound extremely foolish.

Now, I didn't tell him this, but it dawned on me that whatever atheists/evolutionists believe contradicts what God stated in the first two books of Genesis.

And when was the book of Genesis proved to be an accurate account of the formation of Earth? When did that happen? My point being - I DON'T CARE what The Bible has to say about Earth's beginning. It was written thousands of years ago, and SO MANY good and useful discoveries have been made since then. There are models that describe things SO MUCH BETTER and fit with the observable details SO MUCH BETTER. You want to point to something someone wrote in some ancient book as the most current and best ideas we have about why our planet is here? Are you kidding?

So, my questions is -- Is this evidence for Satan?

No. Not even close. None of this has anything to do with "Satan." Also, please first demonstrate how you know that "Satan" is not a fictional character. Before we continue, .that is a must. And no... I DO NOT CARE that YOU say that "Satan" wants me to believe he doesn't exist. Don't care in the slightest. That's a reverse psychology SCAM, and my guess is that you have no good evidence either way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did you ever explain what is the Scofied heresy?



I trust anthropologists more than paleontologists. They're the ones who turned Jurassic Park into a chicken.

A nonsense answer to valid criticism. I think you have provided your strongest rebuttal.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sweet Jesus , Jurassic Park is a fiction .. its a bloody MOVIE.

Probably thinks it is documentary. Makes sense though. Fiction in support of his fiction.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Creationists tend to be all or nothing thinkers. They live and die by the black and white fallacy. The problem with that is that it refutes their beliefs totally. By their standards God cannot exist.

Since the premise assumes Satan as an entity bent on confusing and obscuring his existence, the OP is exactly the kind of thing Satan would do. Could be it is the work of Satan following the logic I have seen mangled about.