Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."
Loki already addressed how pointless your comment was. It once again reinforces the utter failure of creationists to present positive evidence in support of their gods so they are left to attacking science.
As we see with every post by the fundies, creationism is unsupportable. If creationists were prevented from quote mining other creationists or "quoting" from their bibles, they would be unable to provide any information on creationism at all. All of creationist "science" derives from a book written by non-scientific, pre-technological people who lived in an era where superstitions supplanted knowledge.
When asked for evidence of their claims to supermagicalism, the consistent answer from fundies is: "It says so in the bible." How do we know the bible is true? "It says so in the bible."
Super. A viciously circular argument. And one we can dismiss as such.
learning, is the process of spending energy and time to gain knowledge. It is far easier to say "I believe in creationism" than it is to study science, biology, physics and learn the mechanics of these processes. Apparently, many fundies find it easier to "believe" and to abstain from thinking. You might characterize the intellectually lazy exercise of "believing" as a way to refrain from thinking.
Can you explain how those you wrote the bible had knowledge about;
The Hydrologic Cycle:
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
Within the Bible there are statements consistent with Biology, paleontology, astonomy, meteorology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics.
So please explain how these people would know about such things as hyperthermal vents 3000 years before before their discovery by science?
The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the worlds hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
Science and the Bible
Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:Loki already addressed how pointless your comment was. It once again reinforces the utter failure of creationists to present positive evidence in support of their gods so they are left to attacking science.
As we see with every post by the fundies, creationism is unsupportable. If creationists were prevented from quote mining other creationists or "quoting" from their bibles, they would be unable to provide any information on creationism at all. All of creationist "science" derives from a book written by non-scientific, pre-technological people who lived in an era where superstitions supplanted knowledge.
When asked for evidence of their claims to supermagicalism, the consistent answer from fundies is: "It says so in the bible." How do we know the bible is true? "It says so in the bible."
Super. A viciously circular argument. And one we can dismiss as such.
learning, is the process of spending energy and time to gain knowledge. It is far easier to say "I believe in creationism" than it is to study science, biology, physics and learn the mechanics of these processes. Apparently, many fundies find it easier to "believe" and to abstain from thinking. You might characterize the intellectually lazy exercise of "believing" as a way to refrain from thinking.
Can you explain how those you wrote the bible had knowledge about;
The Hydrologic Cycle:
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
Within the Bible there are statements consistent with Biology, paleontology, astonomy, meteorology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics.
So please explain how these people would know about such things as hyperthermal vents 3000 years before before their discovery by science?
The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the worlds hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
Science and the Bible
CH133: Bible describes water cycle
I think you're going for a bit of a stretch to claim a perfect biblical description of the hydrologic cycle. I saw no description of evaporation, evapotranspiration, etc., that fully describes the hydrologic cycle.Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:Can you explain how those you wrote the bible had knowledge about;
The Hydrologic Cycle:
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
Within the Bible there are statements consistent with Biology, paleontology, astonomy, meteorology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics.
So please explain how these people would know about such things as hyperthermal vents 3000 years before before their discovery by science?
The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the worlds hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
Science and the Bible
CH133: Bible describes water cycle
I didn't say anything about "miracles".
The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
I think you're going for a bit of a stretch to claim a perfect biblical description of the hydrologic cycle. I saw no description of evaporation, evapotranspiration, etc., that fully describes the hydrologic cycle.Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:
CH133: Bible describes water cycle
I didn't say anything about "miracles".
The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
As far as "miracles in the bible", (which, let's be honest, is where you're going), there are any number of science based sites and how shall we say... "debunking the biblical miracles" based sites that address your claims.
How do you account for the outright falsehoods and inconsistencies that litter the bible?
Astoundingly naive.The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.
As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?
Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.
My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.
We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.
I welcome comments from Creationists.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n042X-Fuihg]Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube[/ame]
I think you're going for a bit of a stretch to claim a perfect biblical description of the hydrologic cycle. I saw no description of evaporation, evapotranspiration, etc., that fully describes the hydrologic cycle.I didn't say anything about "miracles".
The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
As far as "miracles in the bible", (which, let's be honest, is where you're going), there are any number of science based sites and how shall we say... "debunking the biblical miracles" based sites that address your claims.
How do you account for the outright falsehoods and inconsistencies that litter the bible?
When you have several people telling a story, all will see things differently and interpret what they do see differently, that accounts for the inconsistencies that exist.
What in the Bible are you claiming is a falsehood?
And as for the hydrologic cycle you have to understand this was a back before science and words like evaporation was known. Therefore it was described in terms they understood. If you cannot understand how these simple verses accurately describe the cycle of rain then you are not as bright as I thought.
Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?
Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
Job 26:8
He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
Job 37:11
Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.
I think what you're tired of is someone daring to challenge your silly YouTube videos.Astoundingly naive.Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.
Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube
Tired of your ignorant posts. You didn't even watch the video Troll. This was between myself and UR or any other proponent of ID that believes in an old earth.
Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.I think you're going for a bit of a stretch to claim a perfect biblical description of the hydrologic cycle. I saw no description of evaporation, evapotranspiration, etc., that fully describes the hydrologic cycle.
As far as "miracles in the bible", (which, let's be honest, is where you're going), there are any number of science based sites and how shall we say... "debunking the biblical miracles" based sites that address your claims.
How do you account for the outright falsehoods and inconsistencies that litter the bible?
When you have several people telling a story, all will see things differently and interpret what they do see differently, that accounts for the inconsistencies that exist.
What in the Bible are you claiming is a falsehood?
And as for the hydrologic cycle you have to understand this was a back before science and words like evaporation was known. Therefore it was described in terms they understood. If you cannot understand how these simple verses accurately describe the cycle of rain then you are not as bright as I thought.
Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?
Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
Job 26:8
He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
Job 37:11
Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.
You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.When you have several people telling a story, all will see things differently and interpret what they do see differently, that accounts for the inconsistencies that exist.
What in the Bible are you claiming is a falsehood?
And as for the hydrologic cycle you have to understand this was a back before science and words like evaporation was known. Therefore it was described in terms they understood. If you cannot understand how these simple verses accurately describe the cycle of rain then you are not as bright as I thought.
Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?
Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
Job 26:8
He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
Job 37:11
Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.
You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
Otherwise know as a god fart.
What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:Can you explain how those you wrote the bible had knowledge about;
The Hydrologic Cycle:
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
Within the Bible there are statements consistent with Biology, paleontology, astonomy, meteorology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics.
So please explain how these people would know about such things as hyperthermal vents 3000 years before before their discovery by science?
The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the worlds hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
Science and the Bible
CH133: Bible describes water cycle
I didn't say anything about "miracles".
The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
You need to define your terms. You make claims to the bible being "scientifically accurate" when it is not. When you're confronted with scientific principles unknown by the writers of the bible you make excuses for the lack of a science vocabulary.Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
You haven't reacted well yourself.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how can it be that statements in the Bible that are scientifically accurate given the fact it was written over two thousand years ago.
And what in the Bible do you say is a falsehood?
Duplicate postFundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
You haven't reacted well yourself.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how can it be that statements in the Bible that are scientifically accurate given the fact it was written over two thousand years ago.
And what in the Bible do you say is a falsehood?
You're not fooling anyone, Pumpkin.And typical of your form, you provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.We "could have" answered them before. It "might have happened" a few pages back, lollipop.
No answer. As predicted.
Oh there's an answer there, Little Debbie.
Nonsense.You just refuse to acknowledge it.
No quote. No link.I have presented the same proof that your pathetic Darwinian myth is entirely based on.
Nonsense.Based on what I have stated above, we now have the FACT of the Creator.
Plenty of supportive--not CONCLUSIVE in any absolute sense--evidence has been submitted. You can stop griping about the conclusion not being expressed in an absolute sense. Ok, Cupcake?What of your origins fairy tale 43 might haves and could haves are verifiable by any corroborative evidence from the distant past??? Absolutely none, Drumstick.
WTF are you going on about now?You still have not responded to my comments regarding your inability to use the scientific method to prove any of your might have/could have just so stories about the distant past.
Ignored what?Why do you ignore it?
Nonsense.Because to respond would be to admit that your belief system requires just as much faith as theism.
Passed over what?Really convenient how you passed over that one.
What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:
CH133: Bible describes water cycle
I didn't say anything about "miracles".
The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:
CH133: Bible describes water cycle
I didn't say anything about "miracles".
The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?I didn't say anything about "miracles".
The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
Elementary science.
Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".
You need to define your terms. You make claims to the bible being "scientifically accurate" when it is not. When you're confronted with scientific principles unknown by the writers of the bible you make excuses for the lack of a science vocabulary.Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
You haven't reacted well yourself.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how can it be that statements in the Bible that are scientifically accurate given the fact it was written over two thousand years ago.
And what in the Bible do you say is a falsehood?
You're not consistent.
If you want a list of biblical errors, there are many sites on the web that can list those errors and falsehoods.
