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

[Father Heathen]

 

[james bond]

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

You don't know that, but yet you believe. It's "faith-based" science and contradicts what God said. First, you have to make this imaginary time of millions of years where no science experiment can be observed. Next, you sprinkle some magic dust to natural selection and somehow a common ancestor comes into being. There is no transitional evidence of these common ancestors, so they're represented by flying creatures and animals we have today. Call this the mountain of facts which creation or real scientists have trouble believing and we realize you are making up a lie. Thus, it adds to evidence for you know who, the father of lies.

God said he created birds and flying animals on the 5th day and then the following day created land animals such as the dragon or dinosaur. Then natural selection took over. The evidence is backed up for one by looking at the design of the feather. It is very lightweight, but sturdy enough to provide lift in terms of aerodynamics so the creature can fly. The feathers are all bunched together and positioned properly as part of a wing extending from the back and not like an arm of the land creature. Fossil evidence shows birds and other fossil evidence shows dinosaurs as separate species.

 

[ecco]

whom I think was an atheist and evolutionist

Do you think all people who believe in evolution are atheists?

I looked at my six days of creation chart and saw that birds or flying animals were created on the 5th day while land animals were created on the 6th.

Did you notice that birds are land animals? I don't know of any who live in the sea, do you?

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

No. Actually, so far it's only evidence of your religious beliefs.

so people usually do not want proof of Satan nor does anyone even bring him up for discussion. Non-believers want proof of God when there isn't any proof for an unproveable God.

What non-believers want proof of God or god or gods? I'm a non-believer. I've never asked anyone for proof of God. In all these forum posts, I've never seen an atheist ask for proof of God. The only people talking about proof of Gods are theists, like yourself, creating strawman arguments.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Such as? Now, you've followed @Subduction Zone with the assertive arguments.

All you have done is assert without evidence. You should clean that up before you start pointing fingers at others.

 

[james bond]

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.

Why would it be ignorant when science backs it up? In 2017, scientist found the chicken came before the egg as the shell of the egg had an enzyme that could only be produced inside the chicken. That follows what God said in Genesis of creating adult creatures. The only creature he created that was a baby was Jesus. How else did the oak tree start?

Then there is systematic elimination of creation scientists. Today, a scientist could lose their job if they talked like I am doing. One cannot go against evolution, so they just make up stuff to support it and make lots of money. Creation scientists would not be able to participate in peer reviews. Thus, we get this fake science and I've demonstrated it just now through the scientific method. Why won't you believe the scientific method?

If you did the same, then I would believe you. I'm not ignorant (like you?) .

 

[ecco]

Instead, the naysayers and evolutionists believey, no, we had the egg before the chicken

Evolutionists do not say that. Perhaps you heard Satan say it.

It turned out that everything I could think of between creation and atheist/evolutionary beliefs contradicted each other.

That's because the old men who wrote Genesis 5000 years ago were completely ignorant of science.

Thus, when you add all the contradictions up, is this evidence for Satan?

No. It is evidence of your fantasy beliefs.

For example, there is a killing around 2 am in the morning and the head of a nearby statue is broken off. Then a week later, another killing and another head of a nearby statue is neatly cut off.

Perhaps you have watched the Simpsons opening too many times and have come to believe it is all real.

Sorry for the poor formatting. It did not take my spaces/tabs.

Spacing formatting XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is easy. All it takes XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is a little ingenuity. Atheists xxxxxx have XXXXXXXXXX ingenuity - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx do you?

 

[james bond]

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 ...

No, reading about evolution does not turn you into Satan, but it does mislead you into thinking it is true. Why else would it contradict everything God said? In these kind of situations, then we both know one is true and the other is false if there are only two possibilities.

For example, in post #1, I had:

GOD >>>>> SATAN
Said it first in the Bible ( Bible can't change) >>>>> Said it throughout the years (hypothesis and theories can change)
Universe >>>>> Multiverse
Creation ex nihilo (supernatural creation in 6 days) >>>>> Universe ex nihilo, i.e. big bang (defies laws of physics, infinite temp and density, all is set up in 20 mins); Before this, it was eternal universe
6,000 yrs old Earth and universe >>>>> 4.5 B yrs old Earth and 13.7 B yrs old universe
Created Adam and Eve >>>>> Humans evolved from monkeys
Created birds 5th day; dinosaurs 6th day >>>>> birds evolved from <strikeout>reptile</strikeout> dinosaurs
Clear explanation of how universe and Earth formed and science backs it up >>>>> Wild hypothesis of infinitely hot and dense unseen particle called singularity; Some event called big bang triggered a cosmic expansion in microseconds that formed the basis for our universe; not clear explanation of what happened
Life can only create life >>>>> Life forms through abiogenesis (based on spontaneous generation that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur)
Started with void >>>>> Started with infinitely hot and dense unseen quantum particle
God is timeless and spaceless >>>>> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence
God is light, i.e. EMS or light >>>>> Things happen through dark energy, dark matter
Universe is bounded and has a center >>>>> Universe is boundless and does not have a center
Earth is special >>>>> There is nothing special about the Earth
Heaven (upward direction) >>>>> Hell (downward direction)

Now, you may not take all of the positions, but generally speaking we know which side you fall and which side I fall. In your case, we strikeout the "GOD >>>>> SATAN" and "Heaven (upward direction) >>>>> Hell (downward direction)." I put that in for religious purposes in the Religion and Science forum. I only wanted to show all the contradictions I could think of.

I disagree with 1850s and that which call "science." We had uniformitarianism or the present is the key to the past concept. That contradicts the catastrophism of the Bible. The Earth was formed by catastrophism and the past was much different from the present. For example, the global flood. OTOH, you claim the global flood never happened with no evidence. There's plenty of evidence for a global flood such a marine fossils make up the majority of the fossil record. Marine fossils were found on the tops of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest. The was even a full whale fossil found there and atheists scientist thought it walked up there.

If this isn't the use of scientific method, then please give a couple of examples of scientific method (aside from natural selection) used by the side which proudly speak of?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The findings of science, are indeed in contradiction with the creation myth of the bible.
Just like it is in contradiction with all other creation myths from other religions.

Nothing new under the sun...





No. It's evidence of the creation myth being wrong.
It's a disproval of those claims.

If a book/claim says X and the facts of reality show the opposite, then it's not the facts of reality that are wrong.



Why should we care what the bible says?



That's not "evolutionary thinking", whatever you mean by that.
Those are just the findings of science. Which, btw, doesn't say the universe is eternal.



The evidence of reality doesn't support this at all - it only contradicts it.



Well, it is true that in science, there can be no collaboration with people who think that their a priori beliefs get presedence over the facts of reality.

As it should be, obviously.
If you're just going to ignore the facts and stick to your faith based beliefs anyway, what's the point of investigating anything? No matter what you'll find, you're just going to stick to your beliefs. So doing science with such a mindset is just a waste of time.

Science is only worth it if you are willing to learn and aren't afraid to find out that what you believe might be incorrect - and change your beliefs accordingly.

Rational folk make their beliefs match the evidence. Irrational folks try to force the evidence to fit their beliefs and if they can't, they just ignore the evidence. Which is literally what you are doing here.




Because the bible doesn't matter. In science, what matters is the practice of collecting and analysing data, followed by forming a hypothesis that makes predictions which are then tested for accuracy.

If the claims of the bible are correct, then that's what the data of reality will reveal.
But the claims of the bible are not correct. As the data reveals. Like you said: the science contradicts it.

And because of your biblical dogmatism, you can only default to the asanine conclusion that "the science, and by extension the evidence of reality, must be wrong".



And here's you trying to rationalise your rejection of scientific findings, all just to defend and stick to your dogmatic beliefs.



No.

When claims / beliefs contradict the evidence of reality, it means that the claims / beliefs are incorrect.

I'll throw you a bone and also add that even if this Satan fellow was the one that "helped" scientists discover all that in one way or another, that statement would remain correct: if claims contradict evidence, it's the claims that are incorrect.

So even if Satan is the "real" scientist that discovered it all and merely "used" humans to impart that knowledge, then still the evidence of reality contradicts biblical myth. Which means that the myths are wrong. Reality sure isn't wrong. Reality is what it is.

A claim being "correct" means that it matches reality.
An "incorrect" claim is a claim that does NOT match reality.

If your beliefs / claims don't match reality, it follows that they are incorrect.

Excellent post. Pretty much says everything that needs to be said in response to the OP. I predict the rest of this thread will be more declarations of the OP's unverified personal opinions on the same irrational foundation. Nothing new at all. Certainly no logic or evidence beyond 'Come on you guys. I really, really believe so it must be true' from the OP.

 

[sooda]

You don't know that, but yet you believe. It's "faith-based" science and contradicts what God said. First, you have to make this imaginary time of millions of years where no science experiment can be observed. Next, you sprinkle some magic dust to natural selection and somehow a common ancestor comes into being. There is no transitional evidence of these common ancestors, so they're represented by flying creatures and animals we have today. Call this the mountain of facts which creation or real scientists have trouble believing and we realize you are making up a lie. Thus, it adds to evidence for you know who, the father of lies.

God said he created birds and flying animals on the 5th day and then the following day created land animals such as the dragon or dinosaur. Then natural selection took over. The evidence is backed up for one by looking at the design of the feather. It is very lightweight, but sturdy enough to provide lift in terms of aerodynamics so the creature can fly. The feathers are all bunched together and positioned properly as part of a wing extending from the back and not like an arm of the land creature. Fossil evidence shows birds and other fossil evidence shows dinosaurs as separate species.

LOLOL Pathetic........

 

[sooda]

Excellent post. Pretty much says everything that needs to be said in response to the OP. I predict the rest of this thread will be more declarations of the OP's unverified personal opinions on the same irrational foundation. Nothing new at all. Certainly no logic or evidence beyond 'Come on you guys. I really, really believe so it must be true' from the OP.

Bronze age superstitions lifted from Canaanite and Babylonian mythology.

In the original version of Eden it was a playground for the gods and man was a worker bee.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, reading about evolution does not turn you into Satan, but it does mislead you into thinking it is true. Why else would it contradict everything God said? In these kind of situations, then we both know one is true and the other is false if there are only two possibilities.

For example, in post #1, I had:

GOD >>>>> SATAN
Said it first in the Bible ( Bible can't change) >>>>> Said it throughout the years (hypothesis and theories can change)
Universe >>>>> Multiverse
Creation ex nihilo (supernatural creation in 6 days) >>>>> Universe ex nihilo, i.e. big bang (defies laws of physics, infinite temp and density, all is set up in 20 mins); Before this, it was eternal universe
6,000 yrs old Earth and universe >>>>> 4.5 B yrs old Earth and 13.7 B yrs old universe
Created Adam and Eve >>>>> Humans evolved from monkeys
Created birds 5th day; dinosaurs 6th day >>>>> birds evolved from <strikeout>reptile</strikeout> dinosaurs
Clear explanation of how universe and Earth formed and science backs it up >>>>> Wild hypothesis of infinitely hot and dense unseen particle called singularity; Some event called big bang triggered a cosmic expansion in microseconds that formed the basis for our universe; not clear explanation of what happened
Life can only create life >>>>> Life forms through abiogenesis (based on spontaneous generation that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur)
Started with void >>>>> Started with infinitely hot and dense unseen quantum particle
God is timeless and spaceless >>>>> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence
God is light, i.e. EMS or light >>>>> Things happen through dark energy, dark matter
Universe is bounded and has a center >>>>> Universe is boundless and does not have a center
Earth is special >>>>> There is nothing special about the Earth
Heaven (upward direction) >>>>> Hell (downward direction)

Now, you may not take all of the positions, but generally speaking we know which side you fall and which side I fall. In your case, we strikeout the "GOD >>>>> SATAN" and "Heaven (upward direction) >>>>> Hell (downward direction)." I put that in for religious purposes in the Religion and Science forum. I only wanted to show all the contradictions I could think of.

I disagree with 1850s and that which call "science." We had uniformitarianism or the present is the key to the past concept. That contradicts the catastrophism of the Bible. The Earth was formed by catastrophism and the past was much different from the present. For example, the global flood. OTOH, you claim the global flood never happened with no evidence. There's plenty of evidence for a global flood such a marine fossils make up the majority of the fossil record. Marine fossils were found on the tops of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest. The was even a full whale fossil found there and atheists scientist thought it walked up there.

If this isn't the use of scientific method, then please give a couple of examples of scientific method (aside from natural selection) used by the side which proudly speak of?

Based on what I know and what I have seen here, I can't trust your claims. I am going to stick with the knowledgeable, objective and reliable sources that I have been. It's been real fun reading your fan fiction.

 

[sooda]

Based on what I know and what I have seen here, I can't trust your claims. I am going to stick with the knowledgeable, objective and reliable sources that I have been. It's been real fun reading your fan fiction.

Its ignorance on parade.

The Garden of Eden narrative in Genesis 2-3 (J) is generally ...
home.valornet.com/eldavis/The_Garden.html
The Ugaritic texts include two medical spells that involve the chthonic god Horon and in one instance, Asherah working together with Horon. Both texts also curiously have strong links with the Garden of Eden narrative in Genesis 2-3. The first text deals with a divine mare (the daughter of Shapsh, the sun god) who has suffered snake-bite.

 

[james bond]

Evolutionists do not say that. Perhaps you heard Satan say it.



That's because the old men who wrote Genesis 5000 years ago were completely ignorant of science.



No. It is evidence of your fantasy beliefs.



Perhaps you have watched the Simpsons opening too many times and have come to believe it is all real.



Spacing formatting XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is easy. All it takes XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is a little ingenuity. Atheists xxxxxx have XXXXXXXXXX ingenuity - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx do you?

I debunked your first assertion so no need to go further:

'In 2010, researchers at the universities of Sheffield and Warwick announced that they had discovered the “proof that shows that, in fact, the chicken came first”. This had something to do with a protein – ovocledidin-17 (OC-17) – that was required for the formation of the shells of chicken eggs and was found only in chicken ovaries. I’m not sure how this settles the matter (those ovaries were in chickens, which must have come from eggs, which came from chickens, which came from eggs…) but the scientists had consulted a machine called Hector, and Hector should know, since Hector is “the UK’s largest, fastest and most powerful supercomputer… capable of over 800 million million calculations a second”.'

Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

Besides, something as complex as the chicken egg and embryo below can't just form.

Also, none of your experiments for the imaginary millions of years can be done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Bronze age superstitions lifted from Canaanite and Babylonian mythology.

In the original version of Eden it was a playground for the gods and man was a worker bee.

It is probably as fruitless to hope literalist would objectively review the history of our religion as it is to hope they would do the same for science, but I appreciate your efforts on the historical front.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would it be ignorant when science backs it up? In 2017, scientist found the chicken came before the egg as the shell of the egg had an enzyme that could only be produced inside the chicken. That follows what God said in Genesis of creating adult creatures. The only creature he created that was a baby was Jesus. How else did the oak tree start?

Then there is systematic elimination of creation scientists. Today, a scientist could lose their job if they talked like I am doing. One cannot go against evolution, so they just make up stuff to support it and make lots of money. Creation scientists would not be able to participate in peer reviews. Thus, we get this fake science and I've demonstrated it just now through the scientific method. Why won't you believe the scientific method?

If you did the same, then I would believe you. I'm not ignorant (like you?) .

I don't think that you understood whatever article that you read. And if it was from a creationist site you have to know that they were lying in some way..

But go ahead. Back up your claim with a valid source. I doubt if you can.

The Genesis myth was refuted over a hundred years ago and has never recovered.

And no, there has been no "systematic elimination of creation scientists". You are definitely listening to lying sources. Most creationists have removed themselves from the sciences. That is why almost always the term "creation scientist" is an oxymoron. But once again, see if you can support that claim with valid sources.

 

[james bond]

Based on what I know and what I have seen here, I can't trust your claims. I am going to stick with the knowledgeable, objective and reliable sources that I have been. It's been real fun reading your fan fiction.

It is about using facts, reasoning, and historical truths. That and some logic to come up with this great truth during a simple debate about birds from dinosaurs or now birds are dinosaurs. The latter two are wrong. Birds are birds and dinosaurs are dinosaurs. One creature didn't come from another, but that's you claim which you have no facts, reasoning, and historical truths behind it but circumstantial evidence and faulty reasoning, i.e. lies. Add the rest of the mountain of contradictions and discovery that every item is contradicted leads me to the evidence of an Antibible and you know who.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I debunked your first assertion so no need to go further:

'In 2010, researchers at the universities of Sheffield and Warwick announced that they had discovered the “proof that shows that, in fact, the chicken came first”. This had something to do with a protein – ovocledidin-17 (OC-17) – that was required for the formation of the shells of chicken eggs and was found only in chicken ovaries. I’m not sure how this settles the matter (those ovaries were in chickens, which must have come from eggs, which came from chickens, which came from eggs…) but the scientists had consulted a machine called Hector, and Hector should know, since Hector is “the UK’s largest, fastest and most powerful supercomputer… capable of over 800 million million calculations a second”.'

Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

Besides, something as complex as the chicken egg and embryo below can't just form.

View attachment 36470

Also, none of your experiments for the imaginary millions of years can be done.

Not a valid source. Try again. What you need to do is to find the original article and see if your source interpreted it correctly.

 

[james bond]

Its ignorance on parade.

The Garden of Eden narrative in Genesis 2-3 (J) is generally ...
home.valornet.com/eldavis/The_Garden.html
The Ugaritic texts include two medical spells that involve the chthonic god Horon and in one instance, Asherah working together with Horon. Both texts also curiously have strong links with the Garden of Eden narrative in Genesis 2-3. The first text deals with a divine mare (the daughter of Shapsh, the sun god) who has suffered snake-bite.

All of these global stories come from the historical truth and Bible. More evidence for God.

ETA: We do not have any global stories, let alone, local of apes becoming humans or dinosaurs turning into birds. We do not have any stories of a millions or billions of year Earth and universe. That was made up to explain Darwinism in 1956.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is about using facts, reasoning, and historical truths. That and some logic to come up with this great truth during a simple debate about birds from dinosaurs or now birds are dinosaurs. The latter two are wrong. Birds are birds and dinosaurs are dinosaurs. One creature didn't come from another, but that's you claim which you have no facts, reasoning, and historical truths behind it but circumstantial evidence and faulty reasoning, i.e. lies. Add the rest of the mountain of contradictions and discovery that every item is contradicted leads me to the evidence of an Antibible and you know who.

I am sorry, but you can't claim to be using logic when you cannot follow the arguments. That is why you need to at least learn the very basics of science. Until you do you will not understand when you have been refuted. Are you ready for a crash course?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All of these global stories come from the historical truth and Bible. More evidence for God.

No, no no. You do not understand the concept of evidence. Would you like to start there? You are using circular reasoning and confirmation bias. The opposite of science and logic.