Why Is The Bible So Revered As The "Word of GOD"?

[KlosetKing]

Have you read the entire Scripture? If you did you would know that that its harmonious, with a very big theme-no bullshit talking in circles like you.

Actually, i gave you a QUOTE from the SAME bible as yours. You ignored it. It showed very clearly that it is NOT harmonius.

In fact, hasnt that been the biggest problem of the church and the great book? A lack of continuity. Perhaps you would like to shed some light on ALL (not just the ones that back up your ideals) the reasons why the catholic church BANNED several books from the DSS?

GAH! I did it AGAIN! I referenced a post i made with actual QUOTES (facts for the simplicity of the convo) and then asked you ANOTHER QUESTION! Why wont i learn! If I keep doing this, my OTHER questions will never be answered.

 

[budlover13]

Oh im over giving you physical evidence fool. Its like giving a monkey toolset. He'll look it over for a bit, get angry when he realizes he cant figure out how to use them, then start throwing them angrily at other monkeys.

We have provided you links on mulitple occasions, all of which you completely ignore or throw out some wild anecdotal claim with NO link to back it up.

I ran my mouth, and you could only tell me its nothing, AGAIN. Try answering the question? Try actually reading the thread? Other people are reading it, and they are understanding it, and continuing with posts like 'just running your mouth' 'nothing-nothing' 'are you seeing the light' isnt getting you anywhere.

I really cant wait, i say by 400 posts, your reputation will have fallen to nothing, and you will, im sure 'coincidentally' have more people with 1-5 posts popping in to back you up.

Time to make some popcorn.

And THIS is how the ignorance continues. You did a VERY good job of proving your science. And i liked your posts, they broaden MY mind.

See, i believe in God, but not the one generally described in the Bible b/c of several earlier stated reasons. This thread has QUICKLY evolved my thoughts regarding the Bible. It's not the complete change of mind many hope for, as i STILL believe a greater power than you or i created this universe. But you HAVE given me MUCH food for thought and knowledge.

Do not run from these discussions! That's how the ignorance that i used to believe and he STILL believes continues. i implore you to continue to post, not to change his mind, only HE can do that, but to continue to disseminate facts that refute the man-made perversion of faith that we call the Bible.

 

[KlosetKing]

And THIS is how the ignorance continues. You did a VERY good job of proving your science. And i liked your posts, they broaden MY mind.

See, i believe in God, but not the one generally described in the Bible b/c of several earlier stated reasons. This thread has QUICKLY evolved my thoughts regarding the Bible. It's not the complete change of mind many hope for, as i STILL believe a greater power than you or i created this universe. But you HAVE given me MUCH food for thought and knowledge.

Do not run from these discussions! That's how the ignorance that i used to believe and he STILL believes continues. i implore you to continue to post, not to change his mind, only HE can do that, but to continue to disseminate facts that refute the man-made perversion of faith that we call the Bible.

Thank you for the kind words, and im glad i have provided some food for thought. It was only meant as such, it was never meant to 'change' anyones mind about anything.

If you have been following from the beginning with me and him (actually it may have been Slojo, or Weed4Cash, i cant really remember anymore) but i actually also believe in 'God'.

Now take that as you will, it is not 'god' as the bible puts it, but it IS a higher power. Big bang? That was 'him' showing up in style! Evolution? Math? The 'tools' he required for his 'sandbox' (or 'lab' if you prefer). Nothing about science in my eyes has EVER disproved god, but it HAS disproved the bible. At least so much as to show us that we cannot, nay WILL not, take it at face value, or we will never progress. You must read it like any other book, take from it what you can, and if you are a good person with a good heart, it may help you lead a good life. Hell, if your a bad person with a bad heart, it may help even more. But again, like any tool, the bible in the wrong hands is dangerous if not deadly. Especially to those that are, for politeness sakes lets say, Naive (but i think we both know the type im talking about).

I want to reiterate. Nothing about science has EVER disproved god, nor has that ever been a goal. So why is it that faith is so hellbent on disproving science all the time?

 

[budlover13]

Thank you for the kind words, and im glad i have provided some food for thought. It was only meant as such, it was never meant to 'change' anyones mind about anything.

If you have been following from the beginning with me and him (actually it may have been Slojo, or Weed4Cash, i cant really remember anymore) but i actually also believe in 'God'.

Now take that as you will, it is not 'god' as the bible puts it, but it IS a higher power. Big bang? That was 'him' showing up in style! Evolution? Math? The 'tools' he required for his 'sandbox' (or 'lab' if you prefer). Nothing about science in my eyes has EVER disproved god, but it HAS disproved the bible. At least so much as to show us that we cannot, nay WILL not, take it at face value, or we will never progress. You must read it like any other book, take from it what you can, and if you are a good person with a good heart, it may help you lead a good life. Hell, if your a bad person with a bad heart, it may help even more. But again, like any tool, the bible in the wrong hands is dangerous if not deadly. Especially to those that are, for politeness sakes lets say, Naive (but i think we both know the type im talking about).

I want to reiterate. Nothing about science has EVER disproved god, nor has that ever been a goal. So why is it that faith is so hellbent on disproving science all the time?

This is what i've been TRYING to convey in my posts here and also on FB. i have a friend that just ABSOLUTELY refuses to believe in Creationism. Period. We get along VERY well, but religion is a subject we just don't see eye to eye on yet, anyways. Kinda a BrotherBuz antithesis But he understands my philosophy and agrees that whatever i need to do to continue being the kind, peace-seeking, loving individual, it can't all be bad.

He and i are getting ready to meet up for a beer in a few months when he swings through town. Speaking of which, i live in Central Cali. Whereabouts are you, if you don't mind me asking. i like your thinking and again, you REALLY summed up how i believe. i'd appreciate being able to compensate you for your wisdom.

 

[mindphuk]

Again, this was my point to Mccumcumber, concerning the Venus of Willendorf, which is a piece limestone rock.

The problem is that your point was based on mccumcumber's incorrect statement that this particular object was radiocarbon dated. It was not. It was dated using stratigraphy.

Even so, I still thought it was prudent to explain why the ratio of C-14 to N-14 will be essentially the same when an organism dies. Likewise, for other radiometric dating techniques, when rock is heated any elements that are gases escape and when the lava cools, the clock is reset to zero allowing accurate radiometric dating of igneous rocks. This can be confirmed experimentally in the laboratory.

Basically, your objections to radiocarbon dating are based on faulty assumptions.

 

[BrotherBuz]

^^^ Granted, I could have presented that a little better. I thought the point was clear.

 

[mindphuk]

^^^ Granted, I could have presented that a little better. I thought the point was clear.

And you have yet to acknowledge that your point is still wrong.

 

[KlosetKing]

And you have yet to acknowledge that your point is still wrong.

Nor will he ever.

Incoming! More dodging, a few confusing quotes from posts that didn't make sense the first time, and then shortly after he'll be preaching that its what 'he's been saying all along'.

Its really quite predictable. He ignores, dodges, insults, and just as you've forogotten what youve asked, he twists up the facts and 'interprets' it to his own advantage, then tells you that whatever the argument was, its still backing up his argument.

He lives in a delusional world, where everything backs his personal opinions up, and if it doesnt at first, give him some time, he'll MAKE it work.

 

[BrotherBuz]

Those fossils back up evolution theory FAR more often than they disprove it.

How is this true when the links are missing? I'm not talking about fully developed skulls or other body parts found, claiming to be the links, but millions of small transitional links should litter the fossil record if evolution took millions of years. Plain and simple. But instead, their are no transitions in the fossil record - nothing!


Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species –

“Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.”

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.

Do you understand the implications of this?

 

[KlosetKing]

How is this true when the links are missing? I'm not talking about fully developed skulls or other body parts found, claiming to be the links, but millions of small transitional links should litter the fossil record if evolution took millions of years. Plain and simple. But instead, their are no transitions in the fossil record - nothing!


Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species –

“Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.”

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.

Do you understand the implications of this?

Darwin wrote that, thats right, 150 years ago. So, as you would imagine, and its been referenced already in this thread, there ARE transitional links. In fact, at this point, there are thousands of them.

The problem lies in the fact that you want millions of links. Ive already stated this. You are impossible to please, and will take ANY small loophole you can as an out, even if all other evidence outweighs it (thus your opinion on the 'sphere' debate). If we had 100,000 proven transitional links, you would want 500,000. If we had 500,000, you would want a million.

The links are there, you will just never have enough is all. But congrats on your half baked attempt at actually addressing one of the MANY questions that have been presented to you in this thread, almost all of which you so have readily just glossed over.

 

[BrotherBuz]

". . . and then shortly after he'll be preaching that its what 'he's been saying all along'

You betcha, the fossil record does not support evolution. Plain and simple.

 

[KlosetKing]

You betcha, the fossil record does not support evolution. Plain and simple.

You can say it a thousand times sir, it doesn't make it true. And i wont be bothered to post MORE information as to why you are wrong. Your going to need to try harder.

 

[BrotherBuz]

". . . there ARE transitional links. In fact, at this point, there are thousands of them.

You obviously don't have a concept of transitional links. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls; instead small graduations in skeletal formation is the definition of transitions - do you get it?

Now, I'm going to give the viewers a chance to see what a "dodger" you are, by asking you to provide examples of 7 transitional links, since according to you, there are thousands.

 

[BrotherBuz]

Actually, i gave you a QUOTE from the SAME bible as yours. You ignored it. It showed very clearly that it is NOT harmonius.

Its not harmonious to you, because it cramps your live style.

 

[KlosetKing]

You obviously don't have a concept of transitional links. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls; instead small graduations in skeletal formation is the definition of transitions - do you get it?

Now, I'm going to give the viewers a chance to see what a "dodger" you are, by asking you to provide examples of 7 transitional links, since according to you, there are thousands.

Oh i get it quite well! SO here ya go buddy, MORE LINKS! Yet STILL, you havnt provided ONE! BTW this is my FIRST google of it, ripped straight from wiki, but there were plenty of other references if you need them:
Examples

Main article: List of transitional fossils
See also: Evolution of the horse, Evolution of cetaceans, and Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles
The reconstruction of the evolution of the horse and its relatives assembled by Othniel Charles Marsh from surviving fossils that form a single, consistently developing lineage with many "transitional" types, is often cited as a family tree. However, modern cladistics gives a different, multi-stemmed shrublike picture, with multiple innovations and many dead ends. Other specimens cited as transitional forms include the "walking whale" Ambulocetus, the recently-discovered lobe-finned fish Tiktaalik[4] and various hominids considered to be proto-humans.
A middle Devonian precursor to seed plants from Belgium has been identified predating the earliest seed plants by about 20 million years. Runcaria, small and radially symmetrical, is an integumented megasporangium surrounded by a cupule. The megasporangium bears an unopened distal extension protruding above the mutlilobed integument. It is suspected that the extension was involved in anemophilous pollination. Runcaria sheds new light on the sequence of character acquisition leading to the seed. Runcaria has all of the qualities of seed plants except for a solid seed coat and a system to guide the pollen to the seed.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#cite_note-4
Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record because the fossil record is nowhere near complete. Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances and only a fraction of such fossils have ever been discovered. The paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, which suggests that the number of species known through fossils must be less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived. Furthermore the fossil record is very uneven. Certain kinds of organisms, for example those without hard body parts like jellyfish and worms, are very poorly represented.[6]

Its not harmonious to you, because it cramps your live style.

And again back to your insults. Your starting your meltdown buddy. That primal rage is beginning to dwell deep inside the monkey. Nearby monkeys beware! Tools will be thrown soon!

 

[KlosetKing]

Ive got a great link for you BrotherBuz. This may shed some light, i hope it gets you SOME results that you desperately need.

Here ya go!

 

[boneheadbob]

ATTENTION!!!

I have two things to say to you.

1) Evolution is a lie from the devil
2) If you are not sure about the Creator of the universe, ask Him in prayer to reveal Himself.

P.S. You may not have much time left

 

[Derple]

i think the original idea of god and everything has gotten WAAAAAAAY out of whack, i mean honestly, people killing other people your "brother man" or "gods children" all because you worship the same guy up in the sky in a slightly different way. and who knows? maybe the bible or quran were originally written by a childs book writer in 4000 BC as fiction? anyways, i think its just f*cked up and idiotic in general. grow the f*ck up humanity.

 

[BrotherBuz]

Do not run from these discussions!

You can't save him. He just stepped into the Lyons den.

 

[KlosetKing]

ATTENTION!!!

I have two things to say to you.

1) Evolution is a lie from the devil
2) If you are not sure about the Creator of the universe, ask Him in prayer to reveal Himself.

P.S. You may not have much time left

LOL. No, seriously, LOL. You provide about as much insight as BrotherBuz does. I HAVE tried that, hundreds if not thousands of times, still no go buddy. But i can ask a scientist to give me a few good reasons why evolution makes sense, and he floods me with info. I must be a fool to believe someone who has actual information and tangible facts. Everyone knows REAL knowledge comes from thousands of years old anecdotal 'stories'.

You can't save him. He just stepped into the Lyons den.

You are just flowing with links and facts aren't you? Please, stop giving me so much documented information, i can't sort through it all!