Bigfoot told me this article is bullsh!t.
Actually, I'd like to know the time. Early sailors KNEW that the earth was round because when one could no longer see the masts of ships, something had to explain that.
Actually, I've spoken with a biblical scholar that knows "original languages" and has thus worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls. In a discussion with him, he confirmed that he can literally translate directly from the original languages to what is written in the American Standard Version (1908) of the Bible. All other "translations" require him to first translate directly and then "paraphrase."
Biblical confirmation of Jesus being subordinate occurred when Jesus stated that "only the Father" knew the time of the end.
Yes, all of the above bolded parts are evident in the "science" for "global warming" scientists. They try to deny us the rights to use coal and oil based fuels, they try to convince us we are "deniers" if we don't follow their "doctrine", and while they haven't yet begun to torture and kill, it hasn't stopped those that "believe" those scientists from calling for drastic punishment to the "deniers." Lastly, those scientists and political leaders that follow, constantly say that the "science" is settled, without acknowledging that more scientists disagree than agree with the believers of global warming and man's contribution to it.
I was under the impression that science was to begin with a hypothesis, followed up with a theorem to be proven, and once proven to then call it a "law." Today, "politically correct" scientists want to offer up consensus as a form of deciding whether something is true. This is especially true with the global warming debate. I know that the humanists try to debunk religion by saying that evolution is "fact," but they always seem to fall short of calling it a scientific LAW.
Last but not least, I missed "quoting" the comment about the Quran building on the Bible, which built upon the Torah. With regards to that, I disagree. Text within the Bible and the Torah have consistencies, which the Quran does not with either. Primarily, Mohamed was the author of the Quran and claimed that Allah actually moved his hand for the writing. While Mohamed did offer some "respect" to the Bible and Torah, the only common thread between them all is that Abraham is the patriarch to which all three religions have a tie.
Yeah, the politicians really drag the climate change theories through the ringer, but surely most can appreciate a man who stands by a conviction he cannot prove.
EZB has contributed the most to this thread. .0311 comes close with ersatzism. But this^^^^ DEMANDS honorable mention. It has a nice beat and you can dance to it.
People are going to believe what they want to. You cant force them to think different.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord
Joshua 24:15
Joshua 24:15
Me thinks that you haven't got the slightest idea about atheists and their beliefs. Which atheists have committed acts of terror in the name of science? Which atheists have denied civil liberties to others in the name of science? Which atheists have started wars in the name of science? Which atheists have tortured and killed others who denied science?
I've never been a smile feel good Jesus Loves You Christian. I've always felt God was an austere, taciturn diety,and that Jesus was his obedient Son. As far as I know, Jesus was the last of the Gods, coming rather late. But he was the Son of the Most Powerful. None of the others have had staying power. I don't deny being a pick and choose Christian. I choose to go by the Red Letter quotes. When I used to go to Church, mainly on account of my children, I felt annoyed by the prayers that seemed to go on forever, repetetive in nature, asking for favors. Jesus said not to do that. Not to let people see you pray. When I'd bring this point up to preachers, they'ed point out that He prayed openly. But in my skewered line of thinking, Jesus was a God and could do as he pleased. The preachers would say, "Well, that's what He said, but what He really meant was..." Another point of contention I had, and still do is that they say Jesus was scourged by soldiers. My King James says Pilate scourged Him.
I'd see such a person as stubborn, foolhardy, and close-minded.
Which is the difference between science and faith. Science is about creating a hypothesis, testing it, analyzing the results objectively, then revising your hypothesis based on reality. Tests have to be repeatable and the results have to allow accurate predictions to be made.
Faith is the opposite, it starts with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support it, often discarding evidence to the contrary. It doesn't seek to learn and predict, but to validate and indoctrinate.
I'm more scientifically and logically minded, I question things. So no, I do not personally appreciate such a man. I'm sure others do though.
No, not at all. Law, fact, and theory are not hierarchically placed. It's not law > fact > theory. Laws are boring, often equations, and aren't always correct but remain as laws. Theories seek to explain and predict information and in their current form, have absolutely nothing to disprove them and all evidence on-topic points toward them being correct. If there was something to disprove them, they either would have to change or be considered obsolete. Evolution itself is a fact because it is observed that species change. Evolution via natural selection will always be a theory because we don't have a time machine, but it remains true that the theory of natural selection is constantly supported by new discoveries and is never shown to be wrong in its current form. Facts, as you may have guessed, are just things that are observed. Theories are the most complex of the three and just as "true" as facts.
You need to read up more on the scientific definition for those words. Because they're different than standard English, it causes many confusions, primarily with the phrase "evolution is only a theory" which makes at least two errors as discussed previously.
If the Bible did not exist, the Qu'ran would not exist. If the Torah did not exist, the Bible would not exist. The Qu'ran specifically mentions Jesus (Isa), Mary, etc. If Jesus was proven to not exist, that would mean that God, via Mohammed, is not all knowing, which would wreck Islam. Or alternatively, that Mohammed was NOT in fact writing God's words, which would be much the same thing. Or you could say that God knowingly lied to Mohammed. But if God would lie on that account, what else can you trust to be true in the Qu'ran?
Last edited:
I'm trying really really hard to now have a theological conniption over this thread. Breathe....breathe.... 
