Reply With Quote
Terrible to an idiot doesn't mean a thing, tbh. Don't worry, the non-idiots get it.
That was just terrible....at least be funny.Ah. Well, cuck Blake is an idiot, but I don't pretend there's a correlation between theory of evolution not being true and that. So, no fail. And I don't expect you to understand cos you're an idiot too.
Terrible to an idiot doesn't mean a thing, tbh. Don't worry, the non-idiots get it.
nice definition
that is still not a scientific theory
I used the word in proper context. Do you dispute that? I honestly don't even care if you answer. I'll pass on the W; you're being too obtuse for me to really want it.
Chris quoting Einstein is one of the funnier things on this board
thats news to me. derpy seems to think genesis (small g!) is a scientific theory
ok... so you are disagreeing with the huffpo opinion piece that tries to connect the dots and claim the bible does in fact align with the big bang theory.Of course the Bible doesn't claim there was a Big Bang - duh.
basically you are boiling down the similarity to:
1. Science says the universe started with the "big bang"
2. Genesis says the universe started at some point
therefore they are in alignment. that's a weak parallel
yes, we are. but your article also claimed that scientists, at large, ascribe the big bang to "some unimaginable power." i questioned that claim and presented sagan's quote as an alternativeCarl Sagan's chicken or the egg quote is nice, but I've heard that a thousand times. We're talking about the similarities between Genesis and science.
if that's what you want to call itThis is you rationalizing.
1. genesis claims god made light
2. light exists
therefore genesis is in alignment with science
?
if pointing that weak comparison is "me rationalizing" then sure
i dont think you know what conflating means. it's verbatim the word of the bible.Your "damn globe thing" is a theory and has nothing to do with the article. This is you conflating.
"So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome."
the bible treats the skies/heavens as though it were an ocean/sea. we know that not to be true. we know there isn't a dome that separates us from the sky. that's not "conflation." i really think you dont know what that word means when you keep using it in these contexts
it didnt need clarification, so i didn't clarify. article says that doesn't align with science, so it made my point for meThanks for the clarification. Stunning analysis.
good catchThe article was written by one person. There is no "they."
make sure you get all the important details
Great.
your article says "According to contemporary science, this is out of sequence. Birds did not appear until later. However, flying insects did appear at this time, and this could be a remote but possible explanation."No one is confused about birds or insects.
either it does not align with science, or they confused birds with flying insects. i'll let you choose, i'm good either way
the article pointed out for a second time that life originated in the sea. i'm just pointing out that they made a redundant point.I don't think anyone is taking credit. This is an analysis of Genesis and each day.
i agree that it's fascinating. but if the question at hand is if genesis aligns with science, then you would need to have a working definition of a "kind" to make that determination.Scholars have studied the Bible for an entire lifetime and still have questions at the end of the day. It's a fascinating book.
i'm upset that the bible acknowledges that humans are at the top of the food chain? not at all. what i'm saying is making that claim isn't a sign of scientific validity. it's akin to saying "the oceans are made of water. therefore my claims are aligned with science." if you pointed out how silly that was, does that mean that "you're upset that there is a similarity there?"You're upset that there is a similarity there. That's understandable.
huh? i went through each of the article's main points. on a couple of points, they showed that genesis is in conformity with our observations in certain things (light, in fact, exists. life originated in the sea). it correctly pointed out some areas where genesis does not conform with observations (dome separating the seas, plants appearing before animals). it also drew some incorrect parallels (acted like genesis and the big bang are in conformity with one another. even you agreed that they aren't)Amazing how you've managed to say absolutely nothing but declare victory at the same time. You're welcome to disagree with the article but your analysis leaves little to be desired
so i think my point was fairly clear. and of course, as i mentioned in my previous post,
Just because something may or may not be right, doesn't mean it is or isn't scientific. If i said "hey guys, I think Lithium atoms have 3 electrons... just a gut feeling" then I wouldn't be saying anything scientific, even though what I said might be accurate.
the bible saying some things that happen to be accurate doesn't suddenly turn it into a work of science.
neither Genesis or genesis are scientific theories. i dont understand what point you're trying to make now.
i dont even think you're trying to make a point. you're just saying words
Oh, my . Theory of evolution or intelligent design both regard the genesis. Seriously, you can't have a great record as a lawyer.
a) evolution doesn't regard genesis... it is merely the mechanism by which life diversifies. the theory of evolution doesn't describe how life began or how the universe began (genesis)
b) even if we assume that evolution and ID both have to do with genesis, that still doesn't make genesis a scientific theory. and as of now there is nothing scientific about ID
Genesis: origin of
This sh** isn't hard to comprehend.
yes. and what do you think evolution is the "origin of?"
evolution does NOT describe the origin of life
It's (theoretically) the origin of mankind, no?
mankind, yeah. but not the universe/earth/life
We were talking about theory of evolution from the get go, not the big bang theory, bro. Again though, I don't care. This is a mind numbing discussion.
agreed. that's why i've been scratching my head trying to figure out what the point you've been trying to make
I don't think he knows either.
What's your theory of genesis?
irrefutable evidence here that religion makes one stupid, ignorant, "mind numbed"
So continue what intelligent design is and how it is a viable theory in science.
Fake Christian upset about atheist post. Holy spaghetti.
Spurtacular is singularly incapable of learning things. He has tried, very lamely, to occasionally defend his 9-11 controlled demolition theory, among others. He realizes rather quickly he is in over his head and changes the subject as fast as possible.
Were his knowledge of science personified, it would look like an escapee from a concentration camp, if one can pardon the analogy.
Oh, don't be so pedantic.
i dont appreciate that aspersion
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
