You really have no evidence that the earth was not at one time rather smooth. You have only conjecture and no actual scientific first hand observation. I on the otherhand, have what purports to be a revelation from GOD. Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate ---- why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible.
69 comments
Not all scientific observation has to be an eyewitness account. You can actually find things out about the earth's geologic history without a time machine.
Also, really? The Bible can't be proven wrong in any area you can investigate? You can't even think of one place? Not even the part about four-legged insects?
"scientific first hand observation"?
yeah, science doesn't work like that. witness reports are actually the lowest form of evidence.
"Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any aread that I can investigate"
I'm sure you can investigate as to how bats reproduce. The bible says they lay eggs. They don't.
If the bible can't get that right -- how in God's name can they get God right?
Well, if you take the whole thing as an aggregate, the planet IS fairly smooth...Compared to its diameter, even the tallest mountains are incredibly minute.
I would imagine that during the Hadean epoch or before, the whole planetary surface was molten, so perhaps it would be as smooth as a lava field.
Also, once upon a time the Himalayas were the flat bottom of a shallow sea.
That's whole worlds of nonsense.
Really, I can disprove the bible by taking you to the Atlantic ocean and asking if you can see the far continent.
You really have no evidence that the earth was not at one time rather smooth.
Sure - it probably was, back when it was still being formed.
why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible.
There are a thousand different religions all claiming some story or another. People can make up any BS they like and justify it by saying "it's magic". The Flying Spaghetti Monster theory is even better than the Bible's, because it can never be proved wrong by anything.
A snippet of evidence can be found on the FSTDT site, in the form of a quote from the Religious Education Forum, offered up for the delectation of, and mockery by, the fun lovers who frequent FSTDT. Apparently, it is by someone who goes by the name of LittleNipper, and it is easily discerned when reading this snippet that its author is an utter dimwit. Presumably, LittleNipper's advanced state of dimwittery has been achieved by paying assiduous attention to his or her religious education.
Doesn't proving the Bible wrong automatically make you kind of biased against it? Because you think that it's not 100% historically or scientifically accurate?
Oh, and first-hand observation is not necessary to prove that something is fact. Otherwise I could say that your great-great-great-great grandfather was, in fact, a type of mold that grew between someone's toes, fell off one day and managed to grow into a form that greatly resembled a human being. You, nor anyone still living, was there to see your great-great-great-great grandfather's birth, so who are you to say that he wasn't secretely a type of mold that became human-like?
"You have only conjecture and no actual scientific first hand observation. I on the otherhand, have what purports to be a revelation from GOD."
"What PURPORTS to be?" Purports, as in "claims to be?" And what evidence can you offer to back up this claim?
"Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate ---- why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible."
Moot point, because the Bible CAN be unbiasedly proved wrong. I Kings 7:23 says pi is exactly 3. Leviticus 11:23 says that insects have four legs. Leviticus 14:49-53 details how you can cure leprosy by sacrificing a bird. Would you like me to go on?
@ Vince
Take the Nipper to a front porch in Wasilla and see if he can really see Roosha from there. Will he blaspheme against La Palin?
You really have no evidence that the earth was not at one time rather smooth.
I also have no evidence that the Earth wasn't at one time resting on the back of a turtle. So what?
You have only conjecture and no actual scientific first hand observation.
Turtle again.
I on the otherhand, have what purports to be a revelation from GOD.
Yeah, so do the Hindus, the Pagans, the Muslims, and thousands of tribal religions.
Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate ---- why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible.
But it HAS been shown to be inaccurate. And even if we assume it hasn't, you can't use that as a reason to trust a source.
Why is it when I read something this stupid I imagine the guy somehow typed it by banging his head against the keyboard?
WHAM! WHAM! WHAM! "Yeah, on one can argue with that!"
The concept of "burden of proof" needs to be explained to this person. If you propose a novel idea, the burden is on you to provide evidence that it's correct, not on anyone else to provide evidence it's wrong.
It's not necessarily LittleNipper's fault... it's not the most intuitive concept.
Ah, but you really have no evidence that the earth WAS at one time rather smooth. You have only conjecture and no actual scientific first hand observation. I on the otherhand, have what appears to be evidence for an always-uneven earth. Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proven right in any are that I can investigate ---- why must one assume that it can be valid where no human endeavor is possible.
Sure, when Earth was just a ball of molten lava it could be constructed as "smooth".
Witness accounts is the least reliable form of evidence. Ask four people to describe an event and you get four different stories, with some similarities. Kind of like the four gospel writers.
And, did God create man first and then the animals, or the animals first and then man?
Ok, and it's so because you say so. However, in your double standards, we have to demonstrate it "scientifically", whatever it means to you.
And it came to pass that LittleNipper and his clan of creotards slid across the face of the Earth for verily, it was as smooth as a cueball.
Hang on, that isn't in the bible...
"And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped" - Sir Bedevere: Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Bedevere makes as much sense as this loon.
" if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate ---- why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible."
The bible has been proven wrong by the Koran. And the Koran has not been unbiasedly proven wrong in any area that I can investigate.
You really have no evidence that the earth was not at one time rather smooth.
If you were to reduce the Earth to the size of a bowling ball, it would be as smooth as said ball. Mountains included.
if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area
- bats are not birds
I won't even mention a flat earth or the pillars it supposedly rests upon.
Little Nipper should stop nipping with the big boys and girls.
The jey word in his text is "purported". Not proven, then!
Moreover the Bible has been proven wrong in so many respects that the argument ceases now, accorting to Nipper's own terms.
@campbunny - "Where in the world did these people get the idea that "the Bible has never been proven wrong"?
It's called the "ad hoc hypothesis". When presented with evidence, they just invent something out of thin air to explain it. Like when they find a star 170,000 light years away, they say "maybe the speed of light changed" or "maybe the light travels through a space warp, like in Star Trek." It's like the six year old who breaks a lamp and tries to tell his mother "maybe there was an earthquake" or "maybe space men shot it through the window with their death ray" - the arguments of a child.
"You really have no evidence that the earth was not at one time rather smooth."
No, but President Obama is:
image
"I on the otherhand, have what purports to be a revelation from GOD."
Because a supposed revelation from "GOD" (which we only 'know' is a revelation because some ancient guy said so) is equivalent to "actual scientific first hand observation".
"if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate"
Read the first two chapters, then get back to us, dumbass.
Edit
"And, did God create man first and then the animals, or the animals first and then man?
With two conflicting accounts, at least ONE of them must be WRONG. I'm leaning toward both being wrong.
What kind of scares me is that most people eventually realize that the stories told us in childhood a-la "a stork brought you" and "you were found in cabbage" were metaphors and/or cop-outs designed to avoid explaining icky details, but these folks continue to cling to this fantasy of a magic fairy creating the world in six days. Seriously, grow up, yeah?
@LittleNipper
why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible.
I on the otherhand, have what purports to be a revelation from GOD.
Which is the exact same thing as NO evidence.
Okay, guys, help me out, here:
Dude on Mushrooms: "GOD SAYS [insert bullshit here]!"
Science: "we're fairly sure that [reality] is how it works."
Which are you gonna pick, man? I'mma go with the science, here.
Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate ----
OK, how come John lists Nathaniel as one of the twelve disciples, when he's not listed in any of the other gospels? Oh yeah - I know - we can just invent an explanation out of thin air: he had two names. Some people called him Nathaniel and others called him Bartholomew! It must have confused the hell out of him. No, wait, here's another one: John didn't know how to spell "Bartholomew", so he wrote "Nathaniel" instead. Or no, I've got it: his name was Bartholomew, but then he got hit on the head and forgot his name, so he adopted the name "Nathaniel". See? The Bible never makes a mistake.
@John
Don't forget, how does Judas die? According to Matthew he hung himself:
Matthew 27:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
But according to according to Acts 1:18-1:19, he fell down and burst open:
Acts 1:18-1:19
18: (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
So who is right? Oh wait that's right he hung himself, then after his death the rope snapped and caused him to have his stomach bash against a rock thus spilling the intestines, this was a real excuse a Christian gave me when I asked about this seemingly contradiction of Judas's death.
Nor does anyone have any evidence that at one time the Earth wasn't made entirely out of cottage cheese with nice, crunchy bits of celery mixed in along with pimento for colour. Such a statement is as absurd as it is pointless and meaningless. You assume that a statement attributed to some "god" automatically gives it some weight, which, I gather, your assumption being based on some personal belief in the existence of said "god". But since you have absolutely no way in establishing the truthful empirical existence of such a being, and hence the veracity of any claims attributed to or by it, then your objections, assumptions, presuppositions, and argument are equally baseless, pointless, and meaningless as your first point.
Do try to think these things through, old chap; you'll do the rest of us and yourself a world of good.
N.
Really ? Does this include the various books in the original Bible, that were removed over time, because they contradicted the prevailing Religious & Political dogmas of the period, i.e the Bible was censored...
Quote# 72274
You really have no evidence that the earth was not at one time rather smooth. You have only conjecture and no actual scientific first hand observation . I on the otherhand, have what purports to be a revelation from GOD.
Now, if the Bible cannot be unbiasedly proved wrong in any area that I can investigate ---- why must one assume that it cannot be valid where no human endeavor is possible.
(the words in bold are noted as the words that made me burst out laughing and my irony and stupidity meter explode blowing half my ass to china... FBI are still looking for missing pieces of my face that may be strewn about Austrailia and maybe Tibet. The rest... is all gibberish and the OP's own conjecture.)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
