-
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!
The dishonesty of creationists.
- Thread starter tumbleweed41
- Start date
It's amazing how they keep on repeating it, no matter how many times it's been not only debunked, but also shown exactly where it is completely error-ridden and a logical fallacy. I guess that lots of education is necessary. What can you do with people who don't want to learn anything about the basics?
See what I mean? Obviously never heard of SN1987A. Education is desperately needed.
Last edited:
SN1987A? xD
waitasec
Veteran Member
the bible also says it's justifiable to stone a girl to death who didn't bleed on her wedding night
excellent source you got there...
Could you share where the Bible says that?
Obviously, there must be a first Cause. God states that he is the "source of life". (Psalm 36:9) Moses said in prayer to God: "You have always been, and you will always be." (Psalm 90:2 New Century Version) Thus Jehovah as eternal God proves to be the source of all other things.
"Chance, and chance alone, did it all, from the primeval soup to man." Christian de Duve
"Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the studpendous edidice of evolution. Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance." - Jacques L. Monod
Just a thought. You might want to be careful that you not become what you accuse others to be.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Balderdash. Consider: if you were transported to some random location on the earth, what are the chances of your being able to survive there?
If you were transported to some random location in the universe, your chances would be enormously worse.
That's what was implied earlier. What was the first cause of your god?
The first Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy can't be created nor destroyed. Is your god a lump of energy? A lump of coal?
waitasec
Veteran Member
dueteronomy 22:13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
bleeding isn't a sure fire way of proving virginity...
the bible fails epically.
but i guess the life of a girl really isn't all that significant to these important men...
Saying the fine-tuning required for life is error-ridden and a logical fallacy is one thing. Explaining away the reality of fine-tuning is another. Accusing those who disagree with you of willful ignorance benefits you not at all, nor does it make the issue go away.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
dueteronomy 22:13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity, 15 then the young womans father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, I did not find your daughter to be a virgin. But here is the proof of my daughters virginity. Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young womans father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young womans virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her fathers house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her fathers house. You must purge the evil from among you.
bleeding isn't a sure fire way of proving virginity...
the bible fails epically.
but i guess the life of a girl really isn't all that significant to these important men...
The Scriptures don't mention bleeding. It mentions proof of virginity. If a girl claimed to be a virgin and was not, she could be stoned, as the scripture cited mentioned. If she was falsely accused, her slanderous husband was disciplined. God's law against sexual immorality was strict then and it is strict now. "Fornicators nor adulterers...will not inherit God's kingdom. (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)
McBell
Admiral Obvious
There is no reality to the fine-tuned argument.
You are being willfully ignorant.
It has been explained numerous times on this very forum the flaws, errors, and out right lies of the fine-tuned argument.
Your insistence on ignoring why and how you are just flat out wrong is nothing but willful ignorance on your part.
You are now doing nothing but trolling the whole fine-tuned argument.
Perhaps you should get a different song and dance?
This one merely reinforces just how ignorant you are willing to remain in order to justify your beliefs.
waitasec
Veteran Member
what is the significance of the cloth?
17 Now he has slandered her and said, I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.But here is the proof of my daughters virginity. Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town,
epic failure
and here is a wonderful example of a dishonest tactic...
Never heard of Christian de Duve or Jaques Monod before. But here it goes. I'll go for the first quote mine
Read the article. You're telling untruths, again.
He said: "The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence." From A Guided Tour Of The Living Cell, Volume Two, Page 357, Scientific American Library, 1984 . Read the rest of the article, too. His words, not mine.
De Duve never said that evolution is random or by chance. He said that it seizes on small random events, keeping the useful ones, and discarding the rest. And, that there's evidence for that - such as transitional forms (facts creationists ignore), and laboratory demonstrations (facts creationists ignore), that the raw materials of life would have been present on the early Earth. You can read it, yourself!
Just stop telling untruths. You don't put your religion into a favourable light with your untruths.
Do you want me to go into your second quote mine? You even told more lies!
I'll give a proper reference for it!
Read the article. You're telling untruths, again.
He said: "The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence." From A Guided Tour Of The Living Cell, Volume Two, Page 357, Scientific American Library, 1984 . Read the rest of the article, too. His words, not mine.
De Duve never said that evolution is random or by chance. He said that it seizes on small random events, keeping the useful ones, and discarding the rest. And, that there's evidence for that - such as transitional forms (facts creationists ignore), and laboratory demonstrations (facts creationists ignore), that the raw materials of life would have been present on the early Earth. You can read it, yourself!
Just stop telling untruths. You don't put your religion into a favourable light with your untruths.
Do you want me to go into your second quote mine? You even told more lies!
Just a thought; why do creationists always lie and don't ever stop telling untruths? Creationists always lie. That's why the only "argument" they think they have, after exposing their lies about scientific facts, is quote mining. They don't even realise that science is not done with quotes, but with data!
Last edited:
Wikipedia is down xD
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Just blacked-out... if you load the page, refresh and stop the load before the black-out page pops up, you may be able to read the article... that's how I did it.
wa:do
good shout