The circular reasoning of Evolution and billions of years believers.

[Twilight Hue]

It's impossible to prove something to somebody who simply refuses to see the blindingly obvious because they have their head firmly in the deep sand of blind faith.

There are endless errors and contradictions in the bible, you were recently pointed to the date of Jesus' birth regarding the census in Luke (who even contradicts himself), see >here<. You just ignored it.

People who rely on blind faith will always find some way to ignore what isn't consistent with it, no matter how obvious it is to everybody else.

Trying to correct all the brainwashing and the conditioning in religions that promote this type of erroneous train of thought is really difficult and does take years if not decades for a person to deprogram oneself from the conditioning and accept the actual reality revealed through using the scientific methods available.

Some who do not, or will not accept evolution will never get over the denials I'm afraid, which is a real shame because they really cheat themselves out of the real actual way the world works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's impossible to prove something to somebody who simply refuses to see the blindingly obvious because they have their head firmly in the deep sand of blind faith.

There are endless errors and contradictions in the bible, you were recently pointed to the date of Jesus' birth regarding the census in Luke (who even contradicts himself), see >here<. You just ignored it.

People who rely on blind faith will always find some way to ignore what isn't consistent with it, no matter how obvious it is to everybody else.

Or as Dr Gregory House once brilliantly noted: You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is known that rabbits (hares) have a complex digestive system. And while definitions were not necessarily scientific terminology in biblical times as used today, rabbits are not improperly termed as cud-chewers, depending on observation and times. As well as their digestive system.
"Since rabbits and hares have a process that is so similar to cow rumination that it becomes a question of the technicalities of one's definition of rumination, it would be difficult to justify interpreting Leviticus 11:6 as an error in the Bible. " Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?
Geoscience Research Institute

 

[McBell]

It is known that rabbits (hares) have a complex digestive system. And while definitions were not necessarily scientific terminology in biblical times as used today, rabbits are not improperly termed as cud-chewers, depending on observation and times. As well as their digestive system.
"Since rabbits and hares have a process that is so similar to cow rumination that it becomes a question of the technicalities of one's definition of rumination, it would be difficult to justify interpreting Leviticus 11:6 as an error in the Bible. " Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?
Geoscience Research Institute

wow.
reaching deep aren't we?
An article from 1977 that is merely semantic apologetics from the Seventh-day Adventists...

 

[YoursTrue]

wow.
reaching deep aren't we?
An article from 1977 that is merely semantic apologetics from the Seventh-day Adventists...

I don't see what is written is untrue. The digestive system of the rabbit is different from others, and again, scientists may define cud differently today, as I understand it, rabbits are not considered ruminants scientifically speaking of course, but they do redigest some portion of their food. Do rabbits chew their cuds? Well, sort of ... in a backwards way. - Free Online Library
If my terminology is incorrect, I'm open to correction. Thanks.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is known that rabbits (hares) have a complex digestive system. And while definitions were not necessarily scientific terminology in biblical times as used today, rabbits are not improperly termed as cud-chewers, depending on observation and times. As well as their digestive system.
"Since rabbits and hares have a process that is so similar to cow rumination that it becomes a question of the technicalities of one's definition of rumination, it would be difficult to justify interpreting Leviticus 11:6 as an error in the Bible. " Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?
Geoscience Research Institute

Geoscience Research Institute

The Geoscience Research Institute is an organ of the Seventh Day Adventist Church that advocates a creationist viewpoint in Earth sciences. It is based on the campus of Loma Linda University in southern California. The name is very misleading as they try to make the GRI sound like an actual...

rationalwiki.org

Great source you got there

 

[McBell]

I don't see what is written is untrue. The digestive system of the rabbit is different from others, and again, scientists may define cud differently today, as I understand it, rabbits are not considered ruminants scientifically speaking of course, but they do redigest some portion of their food. Do rabbits chew their cuds? Well, sort of ... in a backwards way. - Free Online Library
If my terminology is incorrect, I'm open to correction. Thanks.

I understand.
God is only as smart as the smartest person from that time....

 

[ratiocinator]

Or as Dr Gregory House once brilliantly noted: You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into.

Indeed. Although it pre-dates the good Doctor House by some considerable time...

You Cannot Reason People Out of Something They Were Not Reasoned Into – Quote Investigator®

quoteinvestigator.com

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I've asked before and you keep running away, so I'll ask again for even one, single, solitary example of anybody (with suitable qualifications) has used an argument that is even remotely like this.

I don't believe there are any because any scientist would to totally discredited if they did.

But go ahead, and show me that I'm wrong. If you can't, you owe people an apology.

Read Romans 1.

 

[ratiocinator]

Read Romans 1.

I asked you for an example of a scientist using an argument like you accused them of and you ask me to read an old book. Looks like more running away.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I asked you for an example of a scientist using an argument like you accused them of and you ask me to read an old book. Looks like more running away.

So did you miss the fact that Romans 1 gives the very same argument as I used.

 

[ratiocinator]

So did you miss the fact that Romans 1 gives the very same argument as I used.

I doesn't matter what Romans 1 says. You accused scientists of circular reasoning and provided a 'summary' that you appear to have just made up. I asked you to justify it by providing an example. Romans 1 is not going to give me an example of a present day scientist.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I doesn't matter what Romans 1 says. You accused scientists of circular reasoning and provided a 'summary' that you appear to have just made up. I asked you to justify it by providing an example. Romans 1 is not going to give me an example of a present day scientist.

I proved the circular reasoning used to believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

BTW the James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.

 

[ratiocinator]

I proved the circular reasoning used to believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

No you did not. Give me one example of a scientists using circular reasoning as you described.

BTW the James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.

No, it hasn't. That would be announced in a proper journal and would make the news.

It would not be announced in an YouTube channel with the disclaimer: "Content on The Ultimate Discovery is for entertainment only. While we aim for accuracy, our information may not be correct, up-to-date or complete. Always consult experts and do your own research. Enjoy, but question and explore further."

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No you did not. Give me one example of a scientists using circular reasoning as you described.


No, it hasn't. That would be announced in a proper journal and would make the news.

It would not be announced in an YouTube channel with the disclaimer: "Content on The Ultimate Discovery is for entertainment only. While we aim for accuracy, our information may not be correct, up-to-date or complete. Always consult experts and do your own research. Enjoy, but question and explore further."

Why would they do that?
The James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.
RIP BB
RIP red shift theory
RIP expansion.

Looking back to supposedly about 300 million years after the Big Bang, no only are there not pop 3 stars (refutes the Big Bang) but the starts show a comical signature of being billions of years old (also refutes the Big Bang).
There is also no galaxy collisions nor evidence of damage from galaxy collisions (also refutes the Big Bang).
Not only that, but the galaxies should look enalgered due to an illusion caused by the expansion. They do not. (also refutes the Big Bang)

 

[Astrophile]

Of course, it is always a joy to suffer for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ.

'The old lie, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'

 

[Pogo]

'The old lie, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'

appropriate response to one who fortunately seems to no longer with us.

 

[blü 2]

Can you find any errors at all in the Bible?

Yes, a great many.

For instance, the cosmology of the bible is the cosmology of the times when it was written. Thus it says that ─

The earth is immovably fixed, apparently at the center of creation.​

​

The sun moon and stars go around the earth.​

​

The sky is a hard dome you can walk on.​

​

The stars are affixed to it such that if they come loose, they'll fall to earth.​

​

The earth is flat, either like a table or like a plate (both are found).​

You can read the relevant quotes >here< in an earlier post of mine.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why would they do that?
The James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.
RIP BB
RIP red shift theory
RIP expansion.

Looking back to supposedly about 300 million years after the Big Bang, no only are there not pop 3 stars (refutes the Big Bang) but the starts show a comical signature of being billions of years old (also refutes the Big Bang).
There is also no galaxy collisions nor evidence of damage from galaxy collisions (also refutes the Big Bang).
Not only that, but the galaxies should look enalgered due to an illusion caused by the expansion. They do not. (also refutes the Big Bang)

The problem remains your intentional ignorance in science, selective bias on references you do not understand, and the circular reasoning of the Bible says do therefore it is true, and reject all the the discoveries and research of science since.