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
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#861 Postby Pahu » December 17th, 2017, 6:50 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:You have some work to do here, Pahu. Look back through your posts and dig out the one where you said your bible - and all others (regardless of language, books contained, etc - were 100% accurate. Then your post that said it was 98.5% 'textually pure' and where you admitted 1.5% was 'in question'. Run along now and let me know when you've done that - remember to post your words here.


Yes, that is what I said based on Bible scholarship. I also explained why the 1.5%. So what is your problem?
Please do as I ask. And you have not explained the 1.5% nor proved your other claims about your bible. Until you do, we can take anything you quote from it as worthless.


You must have missed the following:

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 .

http://www.bibletimelines.net/article/3 ... -the-bible
http://www.godrules.net/articles/christiandoctrine.htm
http://onegodonegospel.org/texts/Bible% ... 20True.pdf
http://www.theoldtimegospel.org/apologe ... etics.html
http://www.theoldtimegospel.org/apologe ... index.html

Your attempt to discredit the Word of God is pathetic!
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22954
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#862 Postby Alan H » December 17th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Yeah, Pahu, you keep making the same old assertions, yet fail completely to answer the questions asked. Let me think about how I can simplify it for you to help you understand where you're going wrong.
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: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#863 Postby Pahu » December 17th, 2017, 7:30 pm

Alan H wrote:Yeah, Pahu, you keep making the same old assertions, yet fail completely to answer the questions asked. Let me think about how I can simplify it for you to help you understand where you're going wrong.


My assertions are the answers to your questions. But by all means simplify.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22954
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#864 Postby Alan H » December 17th, 2017, 8:22 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Yeah, Pahu, you keep making the same old assertions, yet fail completely to answer the questions asked. Let me think about how I can simplify it for you to help you understand where you're going wrong.


My assertions are the answers to your questions. But by all means simplify.
You're confusing things: I was asking for evidence, not bald assertions.
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: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#865 Postby Pahu » December 17th, 2017, 8:42 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Yeah, Pahu, you keep making the same old assertions, yet fail completely to answer the questions asked. Let me think about how I can simplify it for you to help you understand where you're going wrong.


My assertions are the answers to your questions. But by all means simplify.
You're confusing things: I was asking for evidence, not bald assertions.


You got evidence!
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22954
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#866 Postby Alan H » December 17th, 2017, 8:57 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
My assertions are the answers to your questions. But by all means simplify.
You're confusing things: I was asking for evidence, not bald assertions.


You got evidence!

LOL!

For instance, you said:
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.
These are assertions. Pick just one (for now) - maybe that rather precise 1.5% figure - then provide evidence for it: not copy and pasted nonsense that actually doesn't address that specific claim, but something that specifically evidences that claim. And do try to do it in your own words. It would be nice to see if you actually understood what it was you were saying for once.
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: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#867 Postby Pahu » December 17th, 2017, 10:25 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:You're confusing things: I was asking for evidence, not bald assertions.


You got evidence!

LOL!

For instance, you said:
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.
These are assertions. Pick just one (for now) - maybe that rather precise 1.5% figure - then provide evidence for it: not copy and pasted nonsense that actually doesn't address that specific claim, but something that specifically evidences that claim. And do try to do it in your own words. It would be nice to see if you actually understood what it was you were saying for once.


That figure is the result of Bible scholarship.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22954
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#868 Postby Alan H » December 17th, 2017, 10:43 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
You got evidence!

LOL!

For instance, you said:
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.
These are assertions. Pick just one (for now) - maybe that rather precise 1.5% figure - then provide evidence for it: not copy and pasted nonsense that actually doesn't address that specific claim, but something that specifically evidences that claim. And do try to do it in your own words. It would be nice to see if you actually understood what it was you were saying for once.


That figure is the result of Bible scholarship.
Tsk, tsk. You're doing it again, 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?

VINDICATOR
Posts: 424
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#869 Postby VINDICATOR » December 18th, 2017, 11:41 am

Dear Pahu,
Do you ever read the news? Did you know that the Pope just criticized the Bible for being wrong? Moreover, the error occurs in "The Lord's Prayer"! The Pope says that the Bible accuses God of leading us into temptation! If there are such serious errors in the Bible then everything in the Bible is under suspicion!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22954
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#870 Postby Alan H » December 18th, 2017, 1:48 pm

VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
Do you ever read the news? Did you know that the Pope just criticized the Bible for being wrong? Moreover, the error occurs in "The Lord's Prayer"! The Pope says that the Bible accuses God of leading us into temptation! If there are such serious errors in the Bible then everything in the Bible is under suspicion!

Is the Pope wrong, 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: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#871 Postby Pahu » December 18th, 2017, 7:53 pm

VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
Do you ever read the news? Did you know that the Pope just criticized the Bible for being wrong? Moreover, the error occurs in "The Lord's Prayer"! The Pope says that the Bible accuses God of leading us into temptation! If there are such serious errors in the Bible then everything in the Bible is under suspicion!


Why does the Pope believe that is an error?
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#872 Postby Pahu » December 18th, 2017, 7:55 pm

Alan H wrote:
VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
Do you ever read the news? Did you know that the Pope just criticized the Bible for being wrong? Moreover, the error occurs in "The Lord's Prayer"! The Pope says that the Bible accuses God of leading us into temptation! If there are such serious errors in the Bible then everything in the Bible is under suspicion!

Is the Pope wrong, Pahu?


The Pope is wrong about many things. Another is the notion we should change the Sabbath to Sunday.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22954
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#873 Postby Alan H » December 18th, 2017, 8:05 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
Do you ever read the news? Did you know that the Pope just criticized the Bible for being wrong? Moreover, the error occurs in "The Lord's Prayer"! The Pope says that the Bible accuses God of leading us into temptation! If there are such serious errors in the Bible then everything in the Bible is under suspicion!

Is the Pope wrong, Pahu?


The Pope is wrong about many things..
We can agree at least on that. But that's not what I asked you, is it? Is he wrong on this and, if so, why.
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: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#874 Postby Pahu » December 18th, 2017, 8:19 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Is the Pope wrong, Pahu?


The Pope is wrong about many things..
We can agree at least on that. But that's not what I asked you, is it? Is he wrong on this and, if so, why.


The Lord's Prayer is the Word of God and cannot be in error. The Pope is an exalted human being but he has no authority to contradict God.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22954
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#875 Postby Alan H » December 18th, 2017, 8:29 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
The Pope is wrong about many things..
We can agree at least on that. But that's not what I asked you, is it? Is he wrong on this and, if so, why.


The Lord's Prayer is the Word of God and cannot be in error. The Pope is an exalted human being but he has no authority to contradict God.

Can you not at least try to answer a direct and simple question? But, of course, you simply beg the question. We'll add that one to your list of logical fallacies.
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?

VINDICATOR
Posts: 424
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#876 Postby VINDICATOR » December 19th, 2017, 5:40 am

Actually, the Bible is right, it's the Pope who is wrong! In the Lord's Prayer we beg God not to lead us into temptation because he is always leading us into temptation! The first time was when he put the tree bearing the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, then warned Adam not to eat of it or else he will learn about sex! Then God put a serpent into the Garden to lure Adam to eat! So God led Adam into temptation to eat of the forbidden fruit! That gave us all "original sin"! What I can't understand is why God leads us into temptation but wants us to plead for him not to do it! Since Pahu is a Bible Guru maybe he can tell us!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22954
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#877 Postby Alan H » December 19th, 2017, 10:26 am

VINDICATOR wrote:Actually, the Bible is right, it's the Pope who is wrong! In the Lord's Prayer we beg God not to lead us into temptation because he is always leading us into temptation! The first time was when he put the tree bearing the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, then warned Adam not to eat of it or else he will learn about sex! Then God put a serpent into the Garden to lure Adam to eat! So God led Adam into temptation to eat of the forbidden fruit! That gave us all "original sin"! What I can't understand is why God leads us into temptation but wants us to plead for him not to do it! Since Pahu is a Bible Guru maybe he can tell us!
His god clearly craves adoration from his devoted fans - a bit like self-centred, self-obsessed, egotistical, selfish celebrities.
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?

VINDICATOR
Posts: 424
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#878 Postby VINDICATOR » December 19th, 2017, 11:21 am

The great humanist Thomas Jefferson saw through God two Centuries ago. He called God: narcissistic, jealous, unscrupulous, vindictive, cruel, untrustworthy, etc. He also revised the Bible. He named it: "The life and morals of Jesus of Nazareth". He took out all the magic, lies, evil etc. You can buy a copy from Amazon.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#879 Postby Pahu » December 19th, 2017, 3:44 pm

VINDICATOR wrote:Actually, the Bible is right, it's the Pope who is wrong! In the Lord's Prayer we beg God not to lead us into temptation because he is always leading us into temptation! The first time was when he put the tree bearing the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, then warned Adam not to eat of it or else he will learn about sex! Then God put a serpent into the Garden to lure Adam to eat! So God led Adam into temptation to eat of the forbidden fruit! That gave us all "original sin"! What I can't understand is why God leads us into temptation but wants us to plead for him not to do it! Since Pahu is a Bible Guru maybe he can tell us!


I think you are wrong about God not wanting Adam and Eve to learn about sex. He created sex and told them to reproduce.
Unnecessary copy and pasted text deleted by Admin

[From Reincarnation in the Bible?
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/reinca ... 1491811009]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

VINDICATOR
Posts: 424
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#880 Postby VINDICATOR » December 20th, 2017, 12:02 pm

Pahu,
Fine! You say that God never leads us into temptation, hence the Bible is wrong to say to God: "lead us not into temptation"! That proves that the Pope is right and there are errors in the Bible and the Bible needs to be revised! You have now opened the "Pandora's Box" to revise the errors in the Bible!

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#881 Postby Pahu » December 20th, 2017, 4:02 pm

Ape-Men? 4

Unnecessary copy and pasted text deleted by Admin

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


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests