Creationists

[Obamerican]

This is your proof what a brilliant mind.

is this your retort? what an ignorant asshole!
a classic non answer !

You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.

I know, I know. You don't trust Wiki because it can be edited by man. Yet you believe the Bible, that wasn't written by God, was inspired by Him. So, it seems that the Bible could've been "edited" as well. Why is the Bible more believable than Wiki?

 

[Youwerecreated]

is this your retort? what an ignorant asshole!
a classic non answer !

You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.

I know, I know. You don't trust Wiki because it can be edited by man. Yet you believe the Bible, that wasn't written by God, was inspired by Him. So, it seems that the Bible could've been "edited" as well. Why is the Bible more believable than Wiki?

Because the bible contains things written about that at the time man had no way of knowing,some of these things written about were not confirmed until modern day science.

Like mountains at the bottom of the ocean. Like springs at the bottom of the ocean. Like the water cycle for the earth. Like man was made up of things unseen by the human eye. That man was made up of igredients of the ground.

More and more city's are being discovered through the aid of the bible. I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other. They may say things a little different but still carry the same meaning.

The bible has been around much longer and has passed every attack. The only time and reason bibles are revised because of new languages and new words that say things clearer for today's languages.

The bible is in every language known to man and that was a prophecy fulfilled not to mention many others that have been fulfilled.

 

[daws101]

This is your proof what a brilliant mind.

is this your retort? what an ignorant asshole!
a classic non answer !

You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.

asked and answered ...but your self imposed ignorance makes you blind.

 

[daws101]

You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.

I know, I know. You don't trust Wiki because it can be edited by man. Yet you believe the Bible, that wasn't written by God, was inspired by Him. So, it seems that the Bible could've been "edited" as well. Why is the Bible more believable than Wiki?

Because the bible contains things written about that at the time man had no way of knowing,some of these things written about were not confirmed until modern day science.

Like mountains at the bottom of the ocean. Like springs at the bottom of the ocean. Like the water cycle for the earth. Like man was made up of things unseen by the human eye. That man was made up of igredients of the ground.

More and more city's are being discovered through the aid of the bible. I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other. They may say things a little different but still carry the same meaning.

The bible has been around much longer and has passed every attack. The only time and reason bibles are revised because of new languages and new words that say things clearer for today's languages.

The bible is in every language known to man and that was a prophecy fulfilled not to mention many others that have been fulfilled.

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png


"I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other."-YWC
:LOL::LOL: OF COURSE THEY DON'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER! BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN THE SAME CONTRADICTIONS...

How often do we hear people “explaining” religious beliefs by stating ”The Bible says so,” as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself? It’s not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know “what the Bible says.”

The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist. Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Bart Ehrman didn’t stop there, however. He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings. It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.

As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the “Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It contains no mistakes.” Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:

We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.

Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers : Dangerous Intersection

OWNING 13 BIBLES SAY ALOT ABOUT YOU NONE OF VERY ENCOURAGING ...



"We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways."

 

[Youwerecreated]

I know, I know. You don't trust Wiki because it can be edited by man. Yet you believe the Bible, that wasn't written by God, was inspired by Him. So, it seems that the Bible could've been "edited" as well. Why is the Bible more believable than Wiki?

Because the bible contains things written about that at the time man had no way of knowing,some of these things written about were not confirmed until modern day science.

Like mountains at the bottom of the ocean. Like springs at the bottom of the ocean. Like the water cycle for the earth. Like man was made up of things unseen by the human eye. That man was made up of igredients of the ground.

More and more city's are being discovered through the aid of the bible. I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other. They may say things a little different but still carry the same meaning.

The bible has been around much longer and has passed every attack. The only time and reason bibles are revised because of new languages and new words that say things clearer for today's languages.

The bible is in every language known to man and that was a prophecy fulfilled not to mention many others that have been fulfilled.

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png


"I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other."-YWC
:LOL::LOL: OF COURSE THEY DON'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER! BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN THE SAME CONTRADICTIONS...

How often do we hear people “explaining” religious beliefs by stating ”The Bible says so,” as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself? It’s not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know “what the Bible says.”

The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist. Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Bart Ehrman didn’t stop there, however. He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings. It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.

As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the “Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It contains no mistakes.” Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:

We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.

Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers : Dangerous Intersection

OWNING 13 BIBLES SAY ALOT ABOUT YOU NONE OF VERY ENCOURAGING ...



"We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways."

I'm sorry you are so dense you can't understand why I would have all the different versions and the Greek and Hebrew concordance.

Some versions I don't doubt they interpret in a way to support their doctrines. But with even the biased versions you can still get to the truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

is this your retort? what an ignorant asshole!
a classic non answer !

You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.

asked and answered ...but your self imposed ignorance makes you blind.

Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?

Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?

Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Daws i'm gonna start calling you the spin-meister.

 

[daws101]

Because the bible contains things written about that at the time man had no way of knowing,some of these things written about were not confirmed until modern day science.

Like mountains at the bottom of the ocean. Like springs at the bottom of the ocean. Like the water cycle for the earth. Like man was made up of things unseen by the human eye. That man was made up of igredients of the ground.

More and more city's are being discovered through the aid of the bible. I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other. They may say things a little different but still carry the same meaning.

The bible has been around much longer and has passed every attack. The only time and reason bibles are revised because of new languages and new words that say things clearer for today's languages.

The bible is in every language known to man and that was a prophecy fulfilled not to mention many others that have been fulfilled.

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png


"I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other."-YWC
:LOL::LOL: OF COURSE THEY DON'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER! BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN THE SAME CONTRADICTIONS...

How often do we hear people “explaining” religious beliefs by stating ”The Bible says so,” as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself? It’s not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know “what the Bible says.”

The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist. Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Bart Ehrman didn’t stop there, however. He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings. It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.

As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the “Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It contains no mistakes.” Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:

We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.

Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers : Dangerous Intersection

OWNING 13 BIBLES SAY ALOT ABOUT YOU NONE OF VERY ENCOURAGING ...



"We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways."

I'm sorry you are so dense you can't understand why I would have all the different versions and the Greek and Hebrew concordance.

Some versions I don't doubt they interpret in a way to support their doctrines. But with even the biased versions you can still get to the truth.

another rationalization.

 

[daws101]

You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.

asked and answered ...but your self imposed ignorance makes you blind.

Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?

Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?

Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?

asked and answered ....as stated before,
already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
whatever dinosaur/bird species chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..


"Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc

is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.

anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles some up! I like mine over easy!

 

[Youwerecreated]

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png


"I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other."-YWC
:LOL::LOL: OF COURSE THEY DON'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER! BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN THE SAME CONTRADICTIONS...

How often do we hear people “explaining” religious beliefs by stating ”The Bible says so,” as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself? It’s not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know “what the Bible says.”

The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist. Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Bart Ehrman didn’t stop there, however. He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings. It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.

As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the “Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It contains no mistakes.” Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:

We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.

Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers : Dangerous Intersection

OWNING 13 BIBLES SAY ALOT ABOUT YOU NONE OF VERY ENCOURAGING ...



"We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways."

I'm sorry you are so dense you can't understand why I would have all the different versions and the Greek and Hebrew concordance.

Some versions I don't doubt they interpret in a way to support their doctrines. But with even the biased versions you can still get to the truth.

another rationalization.

What do you expect from a logical and rational thinking person ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

asked and answered ...but your self imposed ignorance makes you blind.

Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?

Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?

Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?

asked and answered ....as stated before,
already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
whatever dinosaur/bird species chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..


"Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc

is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.

anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles some up! I like mine over easy!

So you are saying chickens self fertilized their eggs. what proof do you have this happened ?

One had to come first the chicken or the egg which is it ?

A new species just does not pop into existence even by evolutionists explanations so if you have no evidence proving hens can fertilize their own eggs your view is based on what ?

Why do we have roosters to fertilize eggs now ? or both sexes for any groups of organisms to sexually reproduce and keep the group of organisms population going ?

You lack evidence to support your view and critical thinking.

 

[daws101]

I'm sorry you are so dense you can't understand why I would have all the different versions and the Greek and Hebrew concordance.

Some versions I don't doubt they interpret in a way to support their doctrines. But with even the biased versions you can still get to the truth.

another rationalization.

What do you expect from a logical and rational thinking person ?

I would expect a logical rational person to know the difference efinition of RATIONAL

1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
2: involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3: relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>

ra·tio·nal·ize verb
\&#712;rash-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z, &#712;ra-sh&#601;-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z\
ra·tio·nal·izedra·tio·nal·iz·ing
Definition of RATIONALIZE
transitive verb
1: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>



you fail!!!

 

[daws101]

Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?

Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?

Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?

asked and answered ....as stated before,
already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
whatever dinosaur/bird species chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..


"Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc

is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.

anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles some up! I like mine over easy!

So you are saying chickens self fertilized their eggs. what proof do you have this happened ?

One had to come first the chicken or the egg which is it ?

A new species just does not pop into existence even by evolutionists explanations so if you have no evidence proving hens can fertilize their own eggs your view is based on what ?

Why do we have roosters to fertilize eggs now ? or both sexes for any groups of organisms to sexually reproduce and keep the group of organisms population going ?

You lack evidence to support your view and critical thinking.

asked and answered epic fail...

 

[Youwerecreated]

asked and answered ...but your self imposed ignorance makes you blind.

Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?

Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?

Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?

asked and answered ....as stated before,
already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
whatever dinosaur/bird species chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..


"Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc

is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.

anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles some up! I like mine over easy!

The right answer is God created both the rooster and the hen and that is how you get fertilized eggs and offspring.

 

[Youwerecreated]

another rationalization.

What do you expect from a logical and rational thinking person ?

I would expect a logical rational person to know the difference efinition of RATIONAL

1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
2: involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3: relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>

ra·tio·nal·ize verb
\&#712;rash-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z, &#712;ra-sh&#601;-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z\
ra·tio·nal·izedra·tio·nal·iz·ing
Definition of RATIONALIZE
transitive verb
1: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>



you fail!!!

It's clear you know the definition but you don't apply the definition properly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

asked and answered ....as stated before,
already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
whatever dinosaur/bird species chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..


"Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc

is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.

anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles some up! I like mine over easy!

So you are saying chickens self fertilized their eggs. what proof do you have this happened ?

One had to come first the chicken or the egg which is it ?

A new species just does not pop into existence even by evolutionists explanations so if you have no evidence proving hens can fertilize their own eggs your view is based on what ?

Why do we have roosters to fertilize eggs now ? or both sexes for any groups of organisms to sexually reproduce and keep the group of organisms population going ?

You lack evidence to support your view and critical thinking.

asked and answered epic fail...

On your part.

 

[daws101]

Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?

Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?

Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?

asked and answered ....as stated before,
already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
whatever dinosaur/bird species chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..


"Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc

is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.

anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles some up! I like mine over easy!

The right answer is God created both the rooster and the hen and that is how you get fertilized eggs and offspring.

you have no evidence of that, so it's conjecture at best,
on the other hand there is millions of years of evidence that egg producing creatures were doing so long before chickens evolved .

 

[daws101]

What do you expect from a logical and rational thinking person ?

I would expect a logical rational person to know the difference efinition of RATIONAL

1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
2: involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3: relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>

ra·tio·nal·ize verb
\&#712;rash-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z, &#712;ra-sh&#601;-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z\
ra·tio·nal·izedra·tio·nal·iz·ing
Definition of RATIONALIZE
transitive verb
1: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>



you fail!!!

It's clear you know the definition but you don't apply the definition properly.

how so?

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?

Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?

Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?

asked and answered ....as stated before,
already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
whatever dinosaur/bird species chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..


"Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc

is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.

anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles some up! I like mine over easy!

The right answer is God created both the rooster and the hen and that is how you get fertilized eggs and offspring.

Which god was it..Thor, Zeus or Lug

 

[daws101]

asked and answered ....as stated before,
already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
whatever dinosaur/bird species chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..


"Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc

is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.

anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles some up! I like mine over easy!

The right answer is God created both the rooster and the hen and that is how you get fertilized eggs and offspring.

Which god was it..Thor, Zeus or Lug

crom conan's fav..