A few question's for atheists ?

[Youwerecreated]

You have given me no reason to believe in a god. I already told you that the bible is an unreliable and unverifiable source by any scientific standard. No one has seen a god, no one can produce a god that everyone can see.

And as I said before, lack of a detailed explanation of events is not proof of a god.

In a few hundred years of serious study (much of that with unsophisticated scientific equipment), one cannot expect to explain in minute detail what happened over billions of years.

You're dismissing science before the work is even remotely finished.

Do you need a definition of empirical evidence ?
(ĕm-pîr'ĭ-kəl)
adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


Read more: empirical: Definition from Answers.com

The bible has provided many ;

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun


1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth

And science later tested and observed the hypothesis and wow it became empirical evidence.

That bloody book has been supported by empirical evidence.

No, its supported by hearsay.

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town". Since the witness did not see Tom in town, the statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. However, it would be admissible as evidence that Susan said Tom was in town, and on the issue of her knowledge of whether he was in town.Hearsay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments.[1] Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation.

A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective empirical or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to, and derived from, our experiences or observations.Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of the "scientific discoveries" of the bible benefited man until man took the initiative to discover them themselves.

So you're admitting there is a God.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The irony is too much

The irony is how this junk science ever found it's way in our schools supposedly filled with intelligent people.

You posted this- Anthropologists critical of calling fossils “human ancestors”

This argument isn't new. In 1998, Christopher Wills (who taught human evolution for an evolutionary biology course I took in college) wrote: "Upright posture may not be unique to our own lineage. An ape that lived ten million years ago on Sardinia, Oreopithecus bambolii, seems to have acquired similar capabilities, perhaps independently." (Children of Prometheus, p. 156) Wood and Harrison's article now elaborates on the dangers of assuming that even an "impressive suite of shared features with fossil hominins" found in Oreopithecus ought to imply a close relationship to humans: <i>Nature</i> Publishes Paper Critical of Ardi's Status as Human Evolutionary Ancestor - Evolution News & Views

In other words, a theory has been tested. That is science.

Your guys are wrong far too much to be considered reliable is that not the word you used earlier ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

A judge asks a witness if he saw the crime. The witness answers, "No but I did read it in the newspaper". Thats hearsay.

No, someone wrote on a manuscript many years ago and describes the earth as a circle.

Hey it didn't become fact for many years after the hypothesis not hearsay,it was someone that knew the earth was round before man confirmed it.

At the time of the writing man did not fly and could not confirm the earth was round, space is where it was confirmed.

And then man later found out the earth was a sphere, proving the bible incorrect.

Do you think men 3,000 to 3,500 hundred years ago, that wrote the bible in their language,not english,should have used modern day verbiage so people like you and i could understand what they were saying ? use a little reasoning will you.

sphere/sfi(&#601r/Noun


1. A round solid figure, or its surface, with every point on its surface equidistant from its center.

2. An object having this shape; a ball or globe

What's the appearance of a round object ? how bout a does appear to be a solid circle ?

Hmm the outside edge of the earth looks like a circle to me.

Google

 

[Youwerecreated]

A judge asks a witness if he saw the crime. The witness answers, "No but I did read it in the newspaper". Thats hearsay.

No, someone wrote on a manuscript many years ago and describes the earth as a circle.

Hey it didn't become fact for many years after the hypothesis not hearsay,it was someone that knew the earth was round before man confirmed it.

At the time of the writing man did not fly and could not confirm the earth was round, space is where it was confirmed.

A circle is not a sphere. Implying it IS is a flat out lie. To show that the bible indicated that the earth is a sphere it must state that the "EARTH IS A SPHERE"....not a circle...not round.

From space, it appears to be a circle oh desperate one.

Google

Really,you are beginning to bore me,with your one meaningless wrong post a day.

 

[HUGGY]

No, someone wrote on a manuscript many years ago and describes the earth as a circle.

Hey it didn't become fact for many years after the hypothesis not hearsay,it was someone that knew the earth was round before man confirmed it.

At the time of the writing man did not fly and could not confirm the earth was round, space is where it was confirmed.

A circle is not a sphere. Implying it IS is a flat out lie. To show that the bible indicated that the earth is a sphere it must state that the "EARTH IS A SPHERE"....not a circle...not round.

From space, it appears to be a circle oh desperate one.

Google

Really,you are beginning to bore me,with your one meaningless wrong post a day.

From "space" it is obvious that the earth is a sphere since it rotates on an axis.

The "circle" conclusion obviously came from observing the moon which does not rotate ..only displaying the same surface.

I don't expect you to "get it" thereby assuming all posts that counter your mindless rote deemed meaningless.

 

[JScott]

The irony is how this junk science ever found it's way in our schools supposedly filled with intelligent people.

You posted this- Anthropologists critical of calling fossils “human ancestors”

This argument isn't new. In 1998, Christopher Wills (who taught human evolution for an evolutionary biology course I took in college) wrote: "Upright posture may not be unique to our own lineage. An ape that lived ten million years ago on Sardinia, Oreopithecus bambolii, seems to have acquired similar capabilities, perhaps independently." (Children of Prometheus, p. 156) Wood and Harrison's article now elaborates on the dangers of assuming that even an "impressive suite of shared features with fossil hominins" found in Oreopithecus ought to imply a close relationship to humans: <i>Nature</i> Publishes Paper Critical of Ardi's Status as Human Evolutionary Ancestor - Evolution News & Views

In other words, a theory has been tested. That is science.

Your guys are wrong far too much to be considered reliable is that not the word you used earlier ?

So what you are saying is that scientists from colleges that specialize in science are just hacks. People that spend their whole lives studying these fields arent as competent as you are. Those are your words, right?

 

[JScott]

Do you need a definition of empirical evidence ?
(&#277;m-pîr'&#301;-k&#601;l)
adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


Read more: empirical: Definition from Answers.com

The bible has provided many ;

hy·poth·e·sis/h&#299;&#712;päTH&#601;sis/Noun


1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth

And science later tested and observed the hypothesis and wow it became empirical evidence.

That bloody book has been supported by empirical evidence.

No, its supported by hearsay.

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town". Since the witness did not see Tom in town, the statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. However, it would be admissible as evidence that Susan said Tom was in town, and on the issue of her knowledge of whether he was in town.Hearsay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments.[1] Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation.

A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective empirical or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to, and derived from, our experiences or observations.Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of the "scientific discoveries" of the bible benefited man until man took the initiative to discover them themselves.

So you're admitting there is a God.

Round and round you go. No, I lean towards empirical evidence not hearsay.

 

[JScott]

No, someone wrote on a manuscript many years ago and describes the earth as a circle.

Hey it didn't become fact for many years after the hypothesis not hearsay,it was someone that knew the earth was round before man confirmed it.

At the time of the writing man did not fly and could not confirm the earth was round, space is where it was confirmed.

And then man later found out the earth was a sphere, proving the bible incorrect.

Do you think men 3,000 to 3,500 hundred years ago, that wrote the bible in their language,not english,should have used modern day verbiage so people like you and i could understand what they were saying ? use a little reasoning will you.

sphere/sfi(&#601r/Noun


1. A round solid figure, or its surface, with every point on its surface equidistant from its center.

2. An object having this shape; a ball or globe

What's the appearance of a round object ? how bout a does appear to be a solid circle ?

Hmm the outside edge of the earth looks like a circle to me.

Google

Unfortunately, a sphere, globe, ball or other spherical shapes are not circles.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And then man later found out the earth was a sphere, proving the bible incorrect.

Do you think men 3,000 to 3,500 hundred years ago, that wrote the bible in their language,not english,should have used modern day verbiage so people like you and i could understand what they were saying ? use a little reasoning will you.

sphere/sfi(&#601r/Noun


1. A round solid figure, or its surface, with every point on its surface equidistant from its center.

2. An object having this shape; a ball or globe

What's the appearance of a round object ? how bout a does appear to be a solid circle ?

Hmm the outside edge of the earth looks like a circle to me.

Google

Unfortunately, a sphere, globe, ball or other spherical shapes are not circles.

If you and buggy can't reason out what was meant by circle of the earth there is no point in carrying this forward . You two are just a little to disingenuous for my taste. I expect someone when debating be somewhat honest and not a tool. Have a good night.

 

[JScott]

Do you think men 3,000 to 3,500 hundred years ago, that wrote the bible in their language,not english,should have used modern day verbiage so people like you and i could understand what they were saying ? use a little reasoning will you.

sphere/sfi(&#601r/Noun


1. A round solid figure, or its surface, with every point on its surface equidistant from its center.

2. An object having this shape; a ball or globe

What's the appearance of a round object ? how bout a does appear to be a solid circle ?

Hmm the outside edge of the earth looks like a circle to me.

Google

Unfortunately, a sphere, globe, ball or other spherical shapes are not circles.

If you and buggy can't reason out what was meant by circle of the earth there is no point in carrying this forward . You two are just a little to disingenuous for my taste. I expect someone when debating be somewhat honest and not a tool. Have a good night.

I have been honest. You go on and on about the bible having all kinds of scientific discoveries incorporated into it but it cant distinguish between a sphere and a circle? 3 isnt Pi, 3.14 is. If God is almighty he would have explained, in the bible, the most sacred book of Christianity, what a sphere was. Its a ball, a globe of rock, hanging from nothing. He didnt. He didnt because the guy that was "inspired by God" didnt know the earth was a sphere. He thought it was a circle because thats what it looked like when he looked down from a large hill and saw his grasshopper sized people.

Another thing, if you were up in space looking down on the earth you would see that it looks like a sphere because of the shape of the shadows. There is no argument here. Thats what you would see. God would see that as well. What am I saying? He created the earth right? He would never say circle because the greatness that is the earth floating in space would cause him to explain what the earth was. Holy cow! Look at your own pictures! Look at the "circle" there. That aint no circle.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cut and paste all you want.

If your only source for proof of god is the bible, you will never prove your case because your source is utterly flawed.

Tell me have you stoned your disobedient children lately?

I have presented more emiprical evidence for proof in what i believe than your side has presented for support of your view i wonder why

All you have done is quote the bible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cut and paste all you want.

If your only source for proof of god is the bible, you will never prove your case because your source is utterly flawed.

Tell me have you stoned your disobedient children lately?

I have presented more emiprical evidence for proof in what i believe than your side has presented for support of your view i wonder why

All you have done is quote the bible.

A circle is round no ?

The apperance of the earth is round no ?

A ball is round no ?

A sphere is round no ?

Picture of both a cir cle and sphere are round no ?

22. It is He Who sits above the circle of the earth, and whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heaven like a curtain, and He spread them out like a tent to dwell.

Isaiah is describing a round earth. His throne is above the circle of the earth.

What other word in Hebrew would describe the earth as round ?

 

[Gadawg73]

There is a long history of science being denied by religion.
Nothing much has changed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Pictures of the earth from space full view. Notice the shape of the perimeter.


Google

The one who inspired the writing was correct.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is a long history of science being denied by religion.
Nothing much has changed.

Only junk science being pushed by an agenda.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cut and paste all you want.

If your only source for proof of god is the bible, you will never prove your case because your source is utterly flawed.

Tell me have you stoned your disobedient children lately?

I have presented more emiprical evidence for proof in what i believe than your side has presented for support of your view i wonder why

All you have done is quote the bible.

What you need to be asking yourself is, how did the one who wrote this portion of the bible know the earth was round.

 

[JScott]

There is a long history of science being denied by religion.
Nothing much has changed.

Only junk science being pushed by an agenda.

Aka. Creationism.

 

[charles brough]

Why do most atheists defend Neo-darwinism when Neo-darwinism can't give a logical explanation supported by evidence as to the origins of life ?
Why do they reject the possibility of creation ?

Perhaps you ask those questions because you want to believe the Bible even though the scientific consenses is that we evolved. Is it because you perhaps think these informed experts don't know what they are doing? There is a long and complext chain of primate fossils leading up to us.

You say the theory of evolution does not, but needs to, give evidence as to the origins of life.
The first step in the process was the synthesis of organic matter. A century ago it was believed to have some "spiritual essense" and hence would never be able to be artificially snythesized. That was soon forgotten because science did soon figure out how to synthesize it! You need to be aware of how close we are to synthesizing organic life, cellls.

Perhaps theists should stop shrinking from the evidence and recognize that we Non-Theists are proud of having evolved to where the human race dominates the Planet. We even have the potential of colonizing and ultimately taking over the Universe as well. We did not descend, we ascended. We don't need to stay fixed to some old Book just to feel pride in ourselves, the common human race. It struggled and suffered through natural selection to achieve what we now have. It was not handed to us by some "spirit." We don't need "spirits" to explain things anymore.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is a long history of science being denied by religion.
Nothing much has changed.

Only junk science being pushed by an agenda.

Aka. Creationism.

What's that say for Neo darwinism since creation is being supported by observed science.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.

And it was so ! and still is today

 

[pinqy]

I have presented more emiprical evidence for proof in what i believe than your side has presented for support of your view i wonder why

All you have done is quote the bible.

What you need to be asking yourself is, how did the one who wrote this portion of the bible know the earth was round.

And what you need to be showing to back up your claims is that the people reading the Bible knew/believed the earth to be spherical (it's not actually a sphere) based solely on the verses you're citing. Aristotle knew in 350 BC that the earth was not flat and believed it to be a sphere. So to support your claims, you need to show that Jews believed the earth to be a sphere before 350 BC based off of the verses you cite.