Jump to content
Science Forums

Bible is word of God ...


PetriFB

Recommended Posts

Yet again, I have not called "people" irrational or absurd, I was talking about the logic of the argument, kindly stop misrepresenting me. And point 2 specifically points out that the question of authorship of the Bible is not one of belief. When you make a statement concerning something real, that statement ceases to be an expression of religious belief and it becomes a statement about reality, and as a statement about reality it is open to charges of logical absurdity, and as a statement about reality it has no special rights under the protection of religious delicacies act.

Also, I have not said god doesn't exist, if you cant get my meaning, read my posts again.

This is simple stuff, I'm writing in english, please make some effort to understand because it's boring to have to explain stuff at this level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I have to leave this forum, because admin don't want that I post link about God and so on .....

 

But it was nice to be with you ..... I would like to be here, but sometimes it is necessary to post a link, so I can't be here anymore ...

 

You all are great also admin is .... I love you all with love of Christ ... byee..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PetriFB was asked to leave because he violated the rules of this site. He would not refrain from blatant evangelizing.

 

Ok.. your rules don't tolerate few links about God......

 

You can now ban me ....... You all are great and admin is also great ......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCE 31,30,29,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,21,20,19,18,17,16,15,14,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1

ACE1,2,3,4,5,6

 

I count 37 years.

 

Ok, so let's start. Sept of 31 BC to Sept of 30 BC. How many years passed bye? 1 year right? Ok so Sept of 31 to 1 BC is 30 years right?

Sept of 1 BC to Sept of 1 AD, how many years? 1 right? Sept. of 1 AD to Sept of 6 AD is 5 more years right? Thus Sept of 31 BC to Sept of 7 AD (note in my earlier post I said 5 so I am correcting myself here) is 37 years, not 31 BC to 6 AD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Ug. I have read it a couple of times....In your point number 2, you again insult the intelligence and beliefs of all religious people worldwide.
Ug's point #2 was:
2) This thread concerns real things, books and authors, once you venture into the realm of real things, you are talking about reality, you are not talking about your personal religious beliefs. I have not crossed any line as I am addressing the question of this thread, your beliefs are your own affair, not mine or anyone else's

Cwes, this is NOT an insult. It is NOT an insult to YOU, nor to any other person or group of people. Your beliefs ARE your own, simple statement of fact. Ug is trying to keep the conversation based as much on "reality" as he can (as far as he understands it).

 

Please stop accusing Ug of being insulting, and calling into question the sanity of deists around the world, or any words to that effect. As far as I can see, he isn't insulting anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so to get back to Freddy's defense of the date of Christ's birth being another fallacy of the bible, I will start another thread. This thread can be found here in the theology forum and I'll post a link when I get it created.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/7543-birth-jesus-history-meets-bible.html

 

I'll also create another post because a lot has happened since this morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.. your rules don't tolerate few links about God......

 

You can now ban me ....... You all are great and admin is also great ......

It is not an issue of tolerance. Considering the scientific stance of this site, I would venture to say that we are very tolerant of religious discussion. However, discussion and preaching are not the same. As Pyrotex and others have repeatedly informed you, we have rules. Your decision not to follow them was your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not an issue of tolerance. Considering the scientific stance of this site, I would venture to say that we are very tolerant of religious discussion. However, discussion and preaching are not the same. As Pyrotex and others have repeatedly informed you, we have rules. Your decision not to follow them was your own.

 

I have not preached, but shown that creation is truth and evolution is a lie...

 

And I can't be here, because whenever I type God, you say that it is preaching...so best is that you ban me or I leave myself.. choice is yours

 

It was nice to talk here you all are great .....

 

Fable tells about the hare, which found big cabbage. When hare started to eat it, under the cabbage heard sound of the tortoise: "Cabbage belongs to me". In order to get cabbage for itself, hare proposed competition. It, which runs faster to field end and back, win the cabbage. Nimble-footed hare surprised, when slow tortoise agreed running race. Tortoise required however, that competition must be following morning. Hare agreed to this. In the morning observant magpie gave competitors starting signal, hare scampered to run. Surprise was large when on the end of field hare saw that tortoise was already there. "Improve your speed, if your intention is win": said tortoise. And so hare ran its best possible speed back, but when hare came to goal tortoise was already there. Hare was confused and he gave up the cabbage to tortoise and left as bitter from its loss on his way. In the evening tortoise couple enjoyed cabbage meal and laughed their cunning an it, how easily can cheat those, who look only at exterior. In both end of field had been different tortoise.

 

Is similar likeness kinship?

 

Evolution teaches very same way as the fable, that similar likeness is proof from the common origin kinship of kinds. In the fable tortoise was of course similar kind, but they faked there, that there was two tortoises, although there was only one. According to this belief kinds, which remind from their external appearance each others, are in development line their close relatives in other words they have developed from the same pre- form. On the basis of this idea German, enthusiastic supporter of Darwin, Ernst Haeckel planned a pedigree to people, which root was plasm and its highest branch was the man. Was lived year 1866. Haeckel was few year previously copied fetus pictures from known researchers (made byBischoff1845 and Ecker1851-59) and faked them thus, that he got form of fetus to agree to his idea of evolution. These faked fetus designs live still in current textbooks even though Haeckel was forced to go court and was condemned from his fakes . Haeckel drew his first pedigree merely on the basis of t imagination. There apes and gorillas, which on behalf of their external appearance look like people; those apes and gorilals were in drawing with nearby branches. Haeckel developed in his imagination life plasm "Monera", which was on the root of pedigree as initiator of the life. Enthusiastic englishman and Darwinist Thomas Huxley also found by accident from base of the sea this life plasm, which for name came Bathybius haeckelii. As a matter of fact this material was only mixture of plaster and alcohol, but at that time plasm cheating support suitably progressing of Darwin's evolution theory. Because weakness of Haeckel's first evolution tree could easily indicate, he planned new Monera-plasm growing organisms pedigree in year 1874. This drawing spread with the help of different medias both to science books and to textbooks. But to people does not tell, that information of those books are based on to imagination and that all proofs about developing of the man from lower kind is missing.

 

 

Idea of pedigree was stated so good to spreading work of evolution, that all possible animals were drawn their own pedigree. Also to schoolbooks were taken picture eg. from pedigrees of horses, whales, birds and the man. To support those drawings were compiled age charts of earth’s surface layers, in which age of the life by the degrees was got about 3.5 billion year. Layers was put fossils, which support different branches and age calculations in the pedigrees. These fossils were little by little call for leading fossils, with whose help were accompanied define age of stratums for suitable to evolution theory.

 

In year 1927 belgian G Lamaitre idea from initial explosion got among evolution supporters enthusiastic acceptance. According to this idea all material got its beginning from the smaller energy point than pin, every by accident exploded and spread all around forming nowadays known macrocosm with its galaxies. Our own the milky way was there atom in the smaller packet. Initial explosion placed the life plasm of Monera to development tree ideas and to current textbooks. Like this tree, which described from all developing got form of fan, in which initial point describes Big-Bang-explosion and in the end are species of animals which have clarified to this day.

 

1950's upset science world. Inside cell living (DNA) being building program structure clarified Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle. Started examining of cells and protein kinship. Was concluded, that in accordance with evolution gradually development line can be found also from birth history of living cells structures. In very large headlines were publish research results, in which so said. cell clock and changes which affected to structures of protein, support the evolution theory lines .

 

 

Truth as accidentally to the publicity

 

Darwin himself believed, that from ground settling we will come to find proofs that animal and plant kinds have developed from lower form to higher forms. Default demanded absolutely, that in fossil material is abound required intermediate forms from kinds, which move from kind to another kind. Darwin informed, that if this intermediate form does not be found, is his evolution theory declare for incorrect. Even though to science institutions were been able to put strong belief to competence of evolution, during over 100 years carried out searches didn't brought wished results. Researchers was forced to reveal, that in layers, in which should appear only elementary life, can be found al nowadays known species of animals and not at all intermediate forms. New Scientist-magazine wrote in year 1985 : " ...Most fossils appear quickly to layers, remain there as unchangeable some million year and disappear after that in the same way". Known evolution biologist Stephen J. Gould bring into view "Cambrise explosion". On this he describes life from under stratum found, ready species of animals. All kinds as vigorous and current richer. Under this life abuzz layer don’t found any proofs about the life, and above of it being layers amount of the kinds has reduced. Has born tree of development, which roots stick up and diverse set of living organisms is lowest.

 

When known development line researcher Richard Leakey was demanded in Walter Universe-program of Cronkite information from development line of the man, he was forced to admit: "If he would make development tree of the man, he would do only question-mark. " Dr.W.R informed as result of research, that common background of the man and ape is only imagination.

 

Evidence of cells

 

Evidences of cells and protein evolution fall down. Has resolved, that as proof used comparison charts was got from computers, which were thus programmed, that they formed from given differences suitable results from the point of view of evolution. When to computer was given basic data without command: "Form development tree", connections no more found. Known researcher and medicine doctor Michael Denton expose in his book these bluffs and that we can't find evolution supporting evidences of different molecules comparison. Results prove it, that each organism group is their own entirety and those can't classify to any development order on the basis of structure molecules.

 

 

In textbook of physics "Vuorovaikutus/WSOY-1996", is said that birth of macrocosm begins from initial explosion and comes to an end to the man; and that this information is based on to scientific truth. Account of textbook from developing of all beginning exceeds in its imagination many children storybooks. How many teacher dare to tell to his students, that this account is based on only to imagination and strong belief, that all however developed.

 

 

American chemist F. Doolittle presented as result of 4 DNA-research, that on the basis of cells building materials made development tree does not remind tree, but cruller.

 

Progressing of research researchers have reached to destination also from internal structures of cells and their operating principle. At the end of 1990’s internationally known cell researcher Michael J. Behe proved in his book, that complicated structure of cell and that it reminds large industrial establishment and activity of energy reclaiming- and operating system and different materials transport systems, haven't been able to born haphazardly and by the degrees. Forming of different cells and their produced effect- and structure materials are clear proofs that behind of that all must be extremely high intelligence.

 

By the degrees also different parts to the world teaching school official of evolution and to parents of children has been exposed, that so said. scientific evidences from the competence of evolution are missing. Development trees are like fairytales from pea stem, which reached to the sky. During last years in different states of USA has held quick-tempered conversations supporters of evolution have could only argue against, that people must trust to them even though proofs from macroevolution is not exist (developing of kind for another kind). There, why for supporting of evolution is continually sought safety about half truths, covering the truth and serious deceptions, they don't wanna answer in publicity. This is still clearer, that almost of 150-year time evolution theory has proved only stories, which based to imagination. As starting-point has been powerful belief, that evolution theory is true and we can’t examine its absurdity. As task of researchers has been only inventing various background accounts about that, how development has possibly taken place. Like this was born story collections, which win in their imagination fairytales of children and which serious faces scientists invent and tell to one another.

 

 

 

References:

1) New Scientist, 108 / 5.12.1985,

2) The Bone Peddlers / William R. Fix,

3 Evolution, A Theory in Crisis / Michael Denton

4) Scientific 2 of American / 2000,

5) darwin Black Box / Michael J. Behe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not preached, but shown that creation is truth and evolution is a lie......References:

1) New Scientist, 108 / 5.12.1985,

2) The Bone Peddlers / William R. Fix,

3) Evolution, A Theory in Crisis / Michael Denton

4) Scientific 2 of American / 2000,

5) darwin Black Box / Michael J. Behe

What does someone say to a person like you? You are so sure that the vast majority of intelligent people on this planet are deceived and are liars. But two of the authors you cite, Denton and Behe, have been found again and again to lie in their books, citing papers that did not exist, misquoting papers that did exist, and willfully refusing to address the obvious holes and distortions in their own logic. People like Denton and Behe exist ONLY to make money off of people like you. And they leave you "brain damaged" in their wake. Sorry dude. Go preach to the choir back home. Better yet, go to Denton and Behe and demand your money back. You've been robbed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ug's point #2 was:

 

Cwes, this is NOT an insult. It is NOT an insult to YOU, nor to any other person or group of people. Your beliefs ARE your own, simple statement of fact. Ug is trying to keep the conversation based as much on "reality" as he can (as far as he understands it).

 

Please stop accusing Ug of being insulting, and calling into question the sanity of deists around the world, or any words to that effect. As far as I can see, he isn't insulting anyone.

 

Pyro, as a mod, I will take your ruling on this issue and end this debate. I was insulted because the way it was written seemed to say that no rational being could disagree with Ug's beliefs that God does not exist, as well as the belief that God could not have inspired the writings. Anyone who disagreed, seemed to be absurd according to his posts.

As this is a theology forum, there are some things that will be supposed on faith if later evidence (coincidental or otherwise) can be provided that leaves enough doubt. This is the same rule that the American court systems are built on and I see no reason why this site should feel differently. If these posts were made in the physics or philosophy forum, I would support Ug, as they do not belong in such forums. They belong in a forum for discussion of such ideas, and the Theology forum is such a place.

As the other recent posts suggest, it is not a place where one evangelizes or simply tells everyone who disagrees with them that they are wrong without providing good evidence or strong reasonable doubt.

PertiFB you did not do this, thus even I criticized your postings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I was insulted because the way it was written seemed to say that no rational being could disagree with Ug's beliefs that God does not exist...

Cwes,

"way it was written" does not equal "that which was written"

 

"seemed to say" does not equal "said"

 

"seemed to say" is an interpretation that takes place in the listener or reader.

 

This kind of inference can mislead you and make you think that you are saying something factual about the other person's POV, when you're really not.

 

A word to the wise is usually sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does someone say to a person like you? You are so sure that the vast majority of intelligent people on this planet are deceived and are liars. But two of the authors you cite, Denton and Behe, have been found again and again to lie in their books, citing papers that did not exist, misquoting papers that did exist, and willfully refusing to address the obvious holes and distortions in their own logic. People like Denton and Behe exist ONLY to make money off of people like you. And they leave you "brain damaged" in their wake. Sorry dude. Go preach to the choir back home. Better yet, go to Denton and Behe and demand your money back. You've been robbed.

 

I'm sure that you are conscious about fakes of evolutionists ..........they have brain washed you .......

 

My faith don't lean on Denton or Behe, but in God .......... I don't have any of Denton's or Behe's books in my bookshell.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cwes99_03: It is entirely futile attempting to communicate with people if those people dont read what is written and respond to it. I have pointed out to you, several times, where you are misrepresenting me, I have also asked you to read up on logical fallacies, please do so, NOW!

Making assumptions of unexpressed meanings and continuing as if those assumptions are correct is a further case of trivially fallacious reasoning and it is a complete waste of my time.

I have continually stressed that belief is not a factor in this thread's question, and for that reason I have had no reason to express a belief of my own concerning existence or non-existence of god. Either show where, on this thread, I have expressed a belief that god doesn't exist or acknowledge in writing that I have not.

You have also attributed to me a belief "that God could not have inspired the writings", again, either show where I have expressed this or publicly withdraw it.

I will take your word that you still cant understand my use of "absurd" and I will explain, please make an effort to read and understand, because this is very simple and it wastes my time to keep repeating it:

1) the claim is that the Bible is the word of god

2) this requires that god transmit word either directly or indirectly to paper

3) there are two possibilities a) god exists :shrug: god does not exist

4) in case :naughty: sentence 2) is logically absurd

5) it is therefore necessary to establish case a)

Note, "establish" (sentence 5) does not require physical evidence but it requires logically consistent reasoning based on real things, that is things common to all people regardless of belief.

I really hope that you can now understand this and will save me the inconvenience of having to deal with facile accusations concerning the use of the word "absurd".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...