Why the bible is wrong...

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally posted by Baxter55
Oh yeah and the evidence of flooding is found globally because all land has risen out of the sea due to plate movements... lava flower... magna pockets pushing mountains into the sky... things like that. How do you explain the Grand Canyon which is the product of millions of years of erosion?

for this reply, i'm going to (for argument's sake) assume the evolution theory is accurate and that all this took billions of years...

the mountains were around long before the animals that were found at the top of 'em even came into existance (assuming of course that evolution happened). tell me, how can mountains rise up out of the ocean and collect fossils of animals that don't even exist yet? exactly... only way they coulda got there was a global flood.

the things that pushed the mountains into the sky was plates crumpling up when they ran into eachother, not magma pockets. there are magma hot-spots which create isolated volcanos in the middle of plates (Hawaii's islands).

also, the Grand Canyon could have been created during an ice age (glaciers cause canyons too), and NOT taken millions of years to create through erosion.

[ubik]

Ok mr.Saved one so you're life turned better, hey that's great, you really really deeply believe in God and salvation that's great too. And you we're and deep rooted atheist until the clever age of 15 great? so you have all kinds of aspects on this this thing GREAT. and all this talk about there's not enough fossils out there to prove the steps of evolution, Ever thought about that there was an quite intense catastrophes before humans, if the lifetime of this planet was pushed in to one hour the time´the humsn have dwelled here is aobut 0.01 seconds and people have studied Evolution for what? 200 years? so don't expect it to be totally clear YET at least it's much more realistic way than that some all mighty power just made it all up in seven days?

[Baxter55]

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons


for this reply, i'm going to (for argument's sake) assume the evolution theory is accurate and that all this took billions of years...

the mountains were around long before the animals that were found at the top of 'em even came into existance (assuming of course that evolution happened). tell me, how can mountains rise up out of the ocean and collect fossils of animals that don't even exist yet? exactly... only way they coulda got there was a global flood.

the things that pushed the mountains into the sky was plates crumpling up when they ran into eachother, not magma pockets. there are magma hot-spots which create isolated volcanos in the middle of plates (Hawaii's islands).

also, the Grand Canyon could have been created during an ice age (glaciers cause canyons too), and NOT taken millions of years to create through erosion.

Ok these mountains WERE under the oceans when animals existed. If you don't agree with this, do you have any factual proof? No.
Magma pockets DO create mountains. Hawaii's islands are considered mountains. ALL volcanos are considered mountains that is why volcano's always have "Mount" in their name (i.e. Mount Saint Helens, THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS have several inactive volcanos).
The Grand Canyon could not have been created by glaciers. Glaciers do not create canyons like the Grand Canyon. Glaciers create U shaped valleys. The Grand Canyon is a straight drop-no nice slop you can walk down. Canyons like these can be created by water flow and ONLY water flow, not ice.

[Zylark]

hello. it's me again. dr. Zylark, out to fight the battle of rationality vs. superstition

i know, i really wanted to let this noah / evolution thing rest, but i felt somehow compelled to answer some of the blatant errors in cottons last post. sorry for the inconvienience, this will only take a minute.

---
cottons wrote:
...the evolution that requires the addition of extra DNA to make the change. thus changing how many chromosomes are located in the cell, etc... all that stuff that has to happen in order to make a single celled organism turn into a human being. DNA doesn't just appear out of nowhere...
---

this might get a bit scientific, but i'll keep it simple. of course DNA doesn't come out of nowhere. it was a stepwise process, starting with aminoacids combining, one combination gave RNA. And before you say that is impossible, i ask what is minerals if not non-organic matter selforganizing. RNA produced proteins and through ever increasing complexity over generations, RNA developed into DNA, and single-cell living creatures, also known as bacteria. the extra amount of DNA needed to create more complex and differentiated organisms come to be via generations of mutation. mutation can (and often do) also change the number of chromosones in the organism. even with a change in chromosone numbers, the DNA information in the genes are still by and large the same (with a small alteration, subtraction or addition due to the mutation). all this is proven through laboratory research all over the world. any pre-med lab assistant can tell you this.

and no, before you ask, there is no design to us humans that inevitably led to us to becoming human. the process from cingle cell to human is dictadet by a series of random mutations, where only the viable variations survived over time and evolved further. that we ended up as we did is just pure luck. now you are supposed to say "but that is impossible, do you know the odds for that happening?" Yes, but imagine you enter a lottery and by some freak of nature actually win. do you then say "but that is impossible, do you know the odds for that happening?" hmmm?

---
cottons wrote:
...the point i was trying to make with the ark was that science has shown that it was possible...
---

i hate to reiterate myself, but no. no world flood, no noah, no ark. and science have never, ever confirmed this myth. on the contrary. science have proven this myth wrong on all accounts.

a geologist claiming global flood would be ridiculed by his peers and excommuned from all scientific positions. the evidence against it is so massive. i have already given reasons for this in previous posts.

---
cottons wrote:
...like the big bang and evolution, it's still just a THEORY...
---

do no confuse the scientific meaning of theory with the everyday use of the word theory. in everyday life we use "theory" more as an expression of guessing or making wild assumptions. ie. "i have this theory that getting high is a civic duty. only when high can we keep world peace!". a scientific theory however is something very different. it is the framework of entire branches of science. the theory of relativity is a science upon itself. not just a bunch of grayhaired professors making wild ass guesses over tea. that gravity is a theory, does not hinder anyone from getting killed if they jump of a tall cliff.

cottons wrote:
---
...if evolution happened, and there were all these fish trying to go on land to become amphibians and reptiles (etc) there should be a lot more of them than the ones who actually made it... 'cause the half species still weren't equipped to live in their new environments and woulda died when they left their other one. thus making an abundance of these half-species fossils.
---

are you complaining that there are too few fossils!!!! i though creationists biggest problem was that there is too many fossils.

seriously though, there is a lot of evidence of these "half-species", or transient-organisms. even today we have organisms that are just as happy under water as on land. and there have been found fossils that show transition in progress. if you please i can give examples of this, but that would be a long post.

---
cottons wrote:
...a church that's both charasmatic and fundamental is impossible. charasmatic christian churches preach loads of false doctrine (ie. speaking in tongues, that you can lose your salvation, etc.). fundamental churches take it to the basics.
---

funny how different churches and strains of christianity always seem to bicker among themselves. and they all claim to be the bearers of the one and only truth. hinduism with it's plethora of gods seems almost tranquil compared to the inter-monotheistic arguing thats going on.

---
cottons wrote:
...no matter how hard you try, you can NEVER deny a changed life.
---

ofcourse not. what's your point? an altered personality doesn't require a god. drugs alter peoples personality all the time. do this make drugs a miracle sent by god? eat acid, and god will visit you, changing your personality for hours or life. one time offer only!

people change their mind and behaviour all the time. there is nothing supernatural about this.

---
cottons wrote:
...had any one of you been in my shoes for the last 3 years, you wouldn't beable to deny the Bible either.
---

this really says more about you than about the bible or god. that you have had an religious experience doesn't make the bible any more valid as a historic document. to put it bluntly, just becourse something is believed by someone does not make it true. not even if many or most believe the same. the truth is not dictated by majority. the truth is dictated by evidence, proof. by what we can observe. if i made a claim that i, in my home nonetheless, have a perfect working teleporter, none of you would believe me without some really hard proof. fantastic claims need fantastic evidence.

oh, and evidence does not mean to validefy the bible with quotes from the bible. that is self-referring and do not count. for evidence to be valid, you need outside sources that are accurate and trustworthy. the bible have non of these.


i gotta keep down the length of my posts, i know, i know...

[Ganj420]

The salty seas that are land locked happende by massive holes in the ground that got filled up by reain and then a bunch of people threw garbage in them making them salty.
And to go with cottons(if it helps which i doubt). Why is there frozen palm trees in antarctica?

[Lucid_Reality]

Frozen palm trees? cool

I do not believe in creationism. It just seems too farfetched. If God were so great, he would want to save everyone. If he discriminates against those who are mentally unable to believe in him, then he cannot be that great...
If he really wanted to save everyone by having his son crucified, I have a feeling he would want to make a bit more of an effort to carry out his plan of saving everyone.

Also, with all the conflicting religions - each one thinking theirs is the right one, who's to say that the next is wrong?

If anyone considers this closed-minded, consider this: I was Lutheran from birth until I was 18. At this time, I found it impossible to believe that if we're good and drive our fossil-fueled cars to church every sunday, we all go to a place with fluffy clouds, and if we do the best we can as human beings without worrying about the afterlife, we go to a pit of fire. It seems like a scare tactic to me. I believe the concept of the Bible to be a guideline to leading a good life, not worshipping something we cannot physically understand.

Atheism all the way. If I'm going to hell because I want to be a good person and respect others in this lifetime, well, it's what I deserve.

[IGotTheCottons]

this is going to be a relatively quick post because i neither have the time, nor the patients to go through all that and pick it apart.

first off, i never once said that science prooved the ark happened. i said that there are theories (and yes, i know the scientific definition of a theory) that support the ark story (therefore it <b>is still a possibility</b>).

also, this thread was to show contradictions and errors in the Bible... meaning if i can show in ANY way how it's not necessarily an error or contradiction, than it's not an error or a contradiction. this thread ISN'T me trying to prove the Bible as being the truth... it's me trying to show you how your errors are not legit, and how they <b>can be</b> explained. even if it's only a possibility and not scientifically proven...

take this for example (and it's only an example... and a very simple one if that)

"eye for an eye"

"turn the other cheak"

contradiction, right?.... WRONG

eye for an eye is talking about the laws of the land (like something that would be brought before the priests and such). turn the other cheak is referring to something not as severe, that would occur between neighbors, relatives, etc. something that wouldn't have to be brought before the priests (ie. lying, an argument, etc.)

so if you come to me with an error or contradiction, and i can show you (either from the Bible, or with a scientific theory) how it's explainable... than it's not an error or contradiction because the possibility still remains that i'm right. even if in your eyes it's just a possibility.

concerning the post about any of you spending 3 years in my shoes. that's not me arguing. that's me saying that the things i've seen, and the things i've experienced (not a "religious experience"). but what i've seen in my every day life, and in the lives of others... it all supports the Bible. the spiritual attacks i've undergone, hearing many, many testimonies of miracles... and these are actual miracles... not just someone having a better life (ie. money coming out of nowhere, as well as multible healings).

anywayz, i said this was gonna be quick, so i should shut up now.

peace

[ubik]

Just an quote:

"Before you can see the light, you must die"

[Baxter55]

Ok I'm not gonna point out on of the contradictions that can be twisted and moulded into saying whatever the hell you want. I'm gonna quote a passage and I want you to tell me if you agree with this punishment. A simple "Yes" or "No" (No of course would mean you do not believe in the bible). I know that you can say Jesus died so we didn't have to do all of the things in the old testemant, so lets say that you are alive in the time before Jesus supposedly came. Would you agree with this statement? Would YOU enforce it? Would YOU kill the person who works on a Sunday with your own hands? What if he had starving children at home and he had to work to support his family as nearly all lower class people did up until about 100 years ago thanks to the industrial revolution.

And I quote...

EXODUS

35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

[Zylark]

this is not really relevant. that the christian god (also known as el, elohim, jahve, jehova) is a vengful one is well known through myth. to say that a deity is cruel do not make the deity unreal or non existent. other arguments are needed to make that claim

[ChiLLZ]

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons
[B it's impossible to argue with someone who is so close-minded. [/B]

well.. this is as far as i read until i got extremely frustrated ... i think the quote says it all, this whole thread seems somewhat redundant to me... the whole thing about christianity is that god does shit that you cant explain, so whether or not there are inconsistancies doesnt matter.. you believe or you dont, period

[Baxter55]

In the bible it says God loves us all. Does he love us to death? He loves the guy that works on Sunday so much that he orders him to be killed for working so he can survive?
There is your argument.

[IGotTheCottons]

lol, first off, the sabbath day is SATURDAY... not sunday. and NOBODY worked on the sabbath day. it was a day that was for rest... and the jews at the time took this very seriously. the person wouldn't be working on the sabbath day... mainly because he wouldn't have anyone to work for.

during old testament times most of the jews took the 10 commandments very seriously. it wasn't just the law of their religion... it was the law (minus a few times when they were under different leadership) of their country... and it said not to work on the sabbath... so just about no one did (i'm sure a few did and were killed from time to time). it's that simple.

to answer your question... if i were living back in those times... i honestly don't know what i'd do in that position. i hate the fact of taking life... regardless of who's it is. that's just who i am, and it's a part of my personality... but then there's that conflict between personality, and spiritual beliefs... so i don't know what i'd do. because i say this doesn't mean i don't believe in the Bible... it just means that i don't know how i'd react in that position. you gotta remember... people are people... regardless of if they believe the Bible or not. there're still gonna make mistakes and bad decisions... it's a part of being imperfect.

Originally posted by ChiLLZ
the whole thing about christianity is that god does shit that you cant explain, so whether or not there are inconsistancies doesnt matter.. you believe or you dont, period

EXACTLY!!! any inconsistancies or 'errors' that you'll find, i can usually easily explain how they're at least possible. you won't believe they're possible, or that my explainations are good enough because you don't share the same beliefs as i do. i on the other hand, see them as perfectly acceptable... therefore this whole debate is rather pointless. you're not gonna convince me i'm wrong, and vice-versa, so we should really save our energy and just agree to disagree.

[Baxter55]

That the weakest statement I've ever heard. Sabbath is SUNDAY first of all. Only the Jews viewed that sabbath as being Saturday and from what I've read you aren't a Jew. Second off all, nearly everyone worked on Sunday and Saturday. You are forgetting that most people couldn't read before Christ's supposed time. Therefore they couldn't read the bible they were just stupid enough to believe some guy that wanted to rule them.
I can't believe that you think that someone who works on a Sabbath should have been put to death, also. I know that was then and this is now, but this is just one of the many flaws in the bible. That is just disgusting. It's fine if you believe these things yourself, but is it right to put someone to death who cannot read the bible, and has never even gotten word of it? This happened all the time up until about 120 years ago (with a few isolated incidents thereafter).
If god encourages death because some poor bastard didn't know anything about him, then God can be shot in the face for all I care.
Not that he even exists.
This is why the bible is a dangerous tool. People are simply too stupid to possess this book. They take it seriously, build up their egos and stereotypes, then go on killing rampages and believe that what they are doing is good.
P.S. The bible makes excellent blunt papers.

[IGotTheCottons]

ok, this is how i know you don't have your facts right. the whole question was regarding back in those times... and back in those times the sabbath was on saturday. Christians don't acknoledge the sabbath day... so yeah... my argument isn't weak at all...

and dude... they could understand their own spoken language. they knew very well the 10 commandments, and the story of moses and all that. they knew not to work on the sabbath day.

so tell me again... how is this a flaw?