INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
User avatar
animist
Posts: 5943
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#761 Postby animist » November 7th, 2017, 12:51 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Pahu wrote:Right! 40,000 for horses and 4,000 for horses and chariots. How is that stretching too far?
Pahu, do you understand arithmetic? I have to ask, since what you've just said adds up to 44,000 stalls in total, does it not? And in that case, BOTH books of the Bible are wrong, are they not?

And by the way, what about the 10 chariot cities?


Where does the Bible mention 10 chariot cities?
you do you make me smile. You seem to have a short memory span, since it was you, not me, who mentioned 10 chariot cities! Yet now it is YOU who are asking ME where in the Bible this is mentioned!

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5943
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#762 Postby animist » November 8th, 2017, 12:43 pm

here is another attempt to reconcile the discrepancy:

http://www.creationscience.co.uk/bible- ... omon-have/

This claims that each chariot had ten horses, but is this likely? Has anyone seen a chariot pulled by ten horses? This piece suggests two (at most): http://www.bible-history.com/links.php? ... e=Chariots

Like Pahu, the writer of the creation science piece is simply making numbers fit the confusing and contradictory information in the two books

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 284
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#763 Postby Pahu » November 8th, 2017, 2:22 pm

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 3



Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock (f). Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina (g). Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed (h).

f. Andrew Snelling, “Fossil Bluff,” Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, March 1985, p. 8.

Carol Armstrong, “Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198–199.

Pat Shipman, “Dumping on Science,” Discover, December 1987, p. 64.

g. Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the “Great Carolina Marl Bed” (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes’ Book House, 1870).

Edward J. Nolan, “Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80–81.

John Watson did extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.

h. A. C. Noé, “A Paleozoic Angiosperm,” Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, May–June 1923, pp. 344–347.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Last edited by Alan H on November 8th, 2017, 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Quote tags added because Pahu is too inconsiderate.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#764 Postby Alan H » November 8th, 2017, 2:58 pm

Which bible, Pahu? Is that such a difficult question to answer?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 284
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#765 Postby Pahu » November 8th, 2017, 3:23 pm

Alan H wrote:Which bible, Pahu? Is that such a difficult question to answer?


Answered and ignored.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#766 Postby Alan H » November 8th, 2017, 8:29 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Which bible, Pahu? Is that such a difficult question to answer?


Answered and ignored.
Answered? Where? Anyone spot it?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3141
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#767 Postby Tetenterre » November 8th, 2017, 11:06 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Which bible, Pahu? Is that such a difficult question to answer?


Answered and ignored.
Answered? Where? Anyone spot it?
Nope. But I'm sure Pahu isn't lying, but merely being <patel>imprecise</patel>. Again.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

VINDICATOR
Posts: 268
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#768 Postby VINDICATOR » November 9th, 2017, 4:52 am

I advise you all to not be so serious when reading the Bible. It is just a book of fairy tales written mostly by bronze age nomads. It is not an encyclopedia on everything! "Cherry picking" is not only admissible, it's also advisable!

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 284
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#769 Postby Pahu » November 9th, 2017, 2:51 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Which bible, Pahu? Is that such a difficult question to answer?


Answered and ignored.
Answered? Where? Anyone spot it?


My error. I thought I had answered it. To answer your silly question, it is the Bible that starts with Genesis and ends with Revelation.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 284
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#770 Postby Pahu » November 9th, 2017, 2:54 pm

VINDICATOR wrote:I advise you all to not be so serious when reading the Bible. It is just a book of fairy tales written mostly by bronze age nomads. It is not an encyclopedia on everything! "Cherry picking" is not only admissible, it's also advisable!


Bible Accuracy 


1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
 
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
 
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm
 
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#771 Postby Alan H » November 9th, 2017, 3:37 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Answered and ignored.
Answered? Where? Anyone spot it?


My error. I thought I had answered it. To answer your silly question, it is the Bible that starts with Genesis and ends with Revelation.
A silly question? As I've said, there are some 107 complete bibles (plus numerous other incomplete ones). I suspect (although I have not checked) that they all meet your criterion of starting with Genesis and ending with Revelation - are they all 100% accurate? Do you have a preference for one specific version? Which one? These are easy questions, Pahu. Why is answering it so difficult for you? I suspect all you need to do is reach out, pick up your bible and copy down the words that define the version. Am I right?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 284
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#772 Postby Pahu » November 9th, 2017, 3:59 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Answered? Where? Anyone spot it?


My error. I thought I had answered it. To answer your silly question, it is the Bible that starts with Genesis and ends with Revelation.
A silly question? As I've said, there are some 107 complete bibles (plus numerous other incomplete ones). I suspect (although I have not checked) that they all meet your criterion of starting with Genesis and ending with Revelation - are they all 100% accurate? Do you have a preference for one specific version? Which one? These are easy questions, Pahu. Why is answering it so difficult for you? I suspect all you need to do is reach out, pick up your bible and copy down the words that define the version. Am I right?


They all say the same thing. I prefer the New King James version.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#773 Postby Alan H » November 9th, 2017, 4:41 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
My error. I thought I had answered it. To answer your silly question, it is the Bible that starts with Genesis and ends with Revelation.
A silly question? As I've said, there are some 107 complete bibles (plus numerous other incomplete ones). I suspect (although I have not checked) that they all meet your criterion of starting with Genesis and ending with Revelation - are they all 100% accurate? Do you have a preference for one specific version? Which one? These are easy questions, Pahu. Why is answering it so difficult for you? I suspect all you need to do is reach out, pick up your bible and copy down the words that define the version. Am I right?


They all say the same thing.
Clearly that's incorrect: they use different words, phrases and idioms. Besides, if they all said the same thing, there would only be a need for one version, not 107, wouldn't there?

However the question I asked and you never answered was: are they all 100% accurate? I listed just English translations: what about other translations? Do they all say the same thing and 100% accurate?
I prefer the New King James version.
Why do you have a preference if they all say the same thing?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 284
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#774 Postby Pahu » November 14th, 2017, 3:56 pm

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 4



Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170 million years after the coal formed (i). In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian (j) rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian (k) rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.

[Unnecessary large image deleted by admin]
Figure 12: Insect in Amber. The best-preserved fossils are encased in amber, protected from air and water and buried in the ground. Amber, a golden resin (similar to sap or pitch) usually from conifer trees such as pines, may also contain other preservatives. No transitional forms of life have been found in amber, despite evolutionary-based ages of 1.5–300 million years. Animal behaviors, unchanged from today, are seen in three-dimensional detail. For example, ants in amber show the same social and work patterns as ants today.

Experts bold enough to explain how these fossils formed say that hurricane-force winds must have snapped off trees at their trunks, causing huge amounts of resin to spill out and act like flypaper. Debris and small organisms were blown into the sticky resin, which was later covered by more resin and finally buried. (Part II of this book will show that such conditions arose during the flood.)

In a clean-room laboratory, 30–40 dormant, but living, bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! [See “Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?”] This amber is claimed to be 25–40 million years old, but I suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only thousands of years ago. Is it more likely that bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero.

i. “A type of amber thought to have been invented by flowering plants may have been en vogue millions of years before those plants evolved...When the researchers analyzed the amber, though, they discovered a chemical signature know[n] only from the amber of flowering plants.” Rachel Ehrenberg, “Flowerless Plants Also Made Form of Fancy Amber,” [i]Science News, Vol. 176, 24 October 2009, p. 5.

“[The Illinois amber] has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.... [Amber resins] [i]are so diverse that those from each plant species have a distinctive Py-GC-MS fingerprint that can be used to identify the plants that produced various ambers around the world.” [David Grimaldi, “Pushing Back Amber Production,” [i]Science, Vol. 326, 2 October 2009, p. 51.

j. R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,” Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292–294.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796–797.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,” Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056–1057.

J. Coates et al., pp. 266–267.

k. George F. Howe et al., “A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173–182.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#775 Postby Alan H » November 14th, 2017, 5:07 pm

The question I asked and you never answered was: are they all 100% accurate? I listed just English translations: what about other translations? Do they all say the same thing and 100% accurate?

Why do you have a preference for the KJV if they all say the same thing, Pahu?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 284
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#776 Postby Pahu » November 14th, 2017, 6:28 pm

Alan H wrote:The question I asked and you never answered was: are they all 100% accurate? I listed just English translations: what about other translations? Do they all say the same thing and 100% accurate?

Why do you have a preference for the KJV if they all say the same thing, Pahu?


I prefer the New King James Version because it has updated to modern english. Also, I have the study Bible version, which I prefer. All Bibles reveal the same message and are 100% accurate.

Bible Accuracy 


1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
 
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
 
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm
 
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#777 Postby Alan H » November 14th, 2017, 7:20 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:The question I asked and you never answered was: are they all 100% accurate? I listed just English translations: what about other translations? Do they all say the same thing and 100% accurate?

Why do you have a preference for the KJV if they all say the same thing, Pahu?


I prefer the New King James Version because it has updated to modern english.
Well, that's different to your previous answer.

Also, I have the study Bible version, which I prefer.
Is that different yet again?

All Bibles reveal the same message and are 100% accurate.
But they say different things, don't they?

Bible Accuracy 


1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
 
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
 
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm
 
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Irrelevant. I didn't ask you whether you believed some bits of it happen to correspond to reality. In fact, to cut to the chase, your actual claims seem to be that a) all bibles, regardless of whether complete or incomplete. when they were written written, what idioms and what languages are used all say exactly the same thing; and b) they are all 100% accurate. Are these accurate summaries of your claims? If not, please correct them.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 284
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#778 Postby Pahu » November 14th, 2017, 8:27 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:The question I asked and you never answered was: are they all 100% accurate? I listed just English translations: what about other translations? Do they all say the same thing and 100% accurate?

Why do you have a preference for the KJV if they all say the same thing, Pahu?


I prefer the New King James Version because it has updated to modern english.
Well, that's different to your previous answer.

Also, I have the study Bible version, which I prefer.
Is that different yet again?

All Bibles reveal the same message and are 100% accurate.
But they say different things, don't they?


No. They all say the same thing in different ways. All Bibles reveal the same message and are 100% accurate.

Bible Accuracy 


1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
 
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
 
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm
 
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Irrelevant. I didn't ask you whether you believed some bits of it happen to correspond to reality. In fact, to cut to the chase, your actual claims seem to be that a) all bibles, regardless of whether complete or incomplete. when they were written written, what idioms and what languages are used all say exactly the same thing; and b) they are all 100% accurate. Are these accurate summaries of your claims? If not, please correct them.[/quote]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#779 Postby Alan H » November 14th, 2017, 8:51 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
I prefer the New King James Version because it has updated to modern english.
Well, that's different to your previous answer.

Also, I have the study Bible version, which I prefer.
Is that different yet again?

All Bibles reveal the same message and are 100% accurate.
But they say different things, don't they?


No. They all say the same thing in different ways. All Bibles reveal the same message and are 100% accurate.
Except for the bits that are missing from some bibles... How can they 'reveal' the same message if some don't have large chunks of the that message? Or do you mean 'reveal the same message' in some glib, superficial way?

But please don't forget I said this:
In fact, to cut to the chase, your actual claims seem to be that a) all bibles, regardless of whether complete or incomplete. when they were written written, what idioms and what languages are used all say exactly the same thing; and b) they are all 100% accurate. Are these accurate summaries of your claims? If not, please correct them.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 284
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#780 Postby Pahu » November 14th, 2017, 9:04 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Well, that's different to your previous answer.

Is that different yet again?

But they say different things, don't they?


No. They all say the same thing in different ways. All Bibles reveal the same message and are 100% accurate.
Except for the bits that are missing from some bibles... How can they 'reveal' the same message if some don't have large chunks of the that message? Or do you mean 'reveal the same message' in some glib, superficial way?


What bits? What chunks? The message in the Bible was revealed by God.

But please don't forget I said this:
In fact, to cut to the chase, your actual claims seem to be that a) all bibles, regardless of whether complete or incomplete. when they were written written, what idioms and what languages are used all say exactly the same thing; and b) they are all 100% accurate. Are these accurate summaries of your claims? If not, please correct them.


The Bible consists of 66 books: 39 in the OT and 27 in the new. The Bible took about 1600 years to write. It was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) by about 40 authors and is internally consistent throughout.

The Bible is 98½ percent textually pure. Through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1½% has any question about it. Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents.

The 1½ percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling.

The NT has over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts existing today with another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing. There is less than a 1% textual variation in the NT manuscripts.

Some of the supporting manuscripts of the NT are:

John Rylands MS written around A.D. 130, the oldest existing fragment of the gospel of John.
Bodmer Papyrus II (A.D. 150-200) .
Chester Beatty Papyri (A.D. 200), contains major portions of the NT .
Codex Vaticanus (A.D. 325-350), contains nearly all the Bible.
Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 350), contains almost all the NT and over half of the OT .
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#781 Postby Alan H » November 14th, 2017, 11:18 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
No. They all say the same thing in different ways. All Bibles reveal the same message and are 100% accurate.
Except for the bits that are missing from some bibles... How can they 'reveal' the same message if some don't have large chunks of the that message? Or do you mean 'reveal the same message' in some glib, superficial way?


What bits? What chunks? The message in the Bible was revealed by God.
Deary me, Pahu. Do you need me to teach you about the bible? Many bibles do not even contain the same chapters. This is a good introduction to some of the variants. Do you accept that not all bibles are the same?

But please don't forget I said this:
In fact, to cut to the chase, your actual claims seem to be that a) all bibles, regardless of whether complete or incomplete. when they were written written, what idioms and what languages are used all say exactly the same thing; and b) they are all 100% accurate. Are these accurate summaries of your claims? If not, please correct them.


The Bible consists of 66 books: 39 in the OT and 27 in the new. The Bible took about 1600 years to write. It was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) by about 40 authors and is internally consistent throughout.
:yawn: All in good time, Pahu. All in good time.

The Bible is 98½ percent textually pure.
What do you mean by that?

Through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1½% has any question about it.
So it's not 100% accurate after all. Tsk, tsk.

Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents.
Please back up your assertion with scientific evidence.

The 1½ percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling.
That's interesting. I thought they were all 'inspired by some god or other'? How did these, shall we call them, inconsistencies' come about? Was she sleeping on the job? WHo decided they these errors do not affect doctrine?

The NT has over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts existing today with another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing. There is less than a 1% textual variation in the NT manuscripts.
I'd love to see your evidence for that! But surely it doesn't matter one jot if any bit of it was written within 100 years of events? What difference does that make?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest