Loves Science ???

General Discussion
121
I think your concept of God derives from religion not from the bible. -- Da-Veed
That means nothing. Please speak from your personal beliefs. What does the Bible mean to you?
Is that unfair?
Yes. Life is not fair. Didn’t your parents tell you that?
Jesus is five letters and you can convert those into any numerical
I was waiting for these hints of numerology to come out. They mean nothing to me. You could make up a thousand systems of converting letters to numbers and a million ways to have them match up to whatever other numbers you want.
122
Now that’s delusional. Children are not gifts from any deity and this is where I bring the topic back to science, both hard and soft. They are created or should be created out of love between two people.
I think people somewhat rely on the code already written in their genes and the living nano-factories that operate according to the code. Where does that code come from except it was written.
These two people have hopefully discussed having children, but birth control can sometimes fail due to human error. Sometimes humans don’t think and have unprotected sex. There are times in which pregnancy happens due to rape or incest. This is not a gift, but a nightmare perpetuating that trauma and the woman should have a choice, made between her and doctor to terminate the pregnancy or continue it. It is not for anyone else to impose their beliefs on the woman… period. Sometimes for the sake of the woman’s life a pregnancy must be terminated. There are other legitimate reasons, but whatever those reasons, it’s none of anyone’s business. That said, if the pregnancy is continued it goes from a blastocyst to a zygote (most are monozygotes, but sometimes the cell divides into zygotes or there are two blastocysts that develop into two zygotes). It goes from there to a fetus and eventually full term.
You seem to be justifying the killing of babies on the basis of definition of words and technicalities.
During this developmental phase, the various stages make the zygote look like a tadpole and the fetus can look like any unborn mammalian fetus, because an elephant, cat, dog, and chimp to name a few are all mammals and the just before birth, the fetus looks like our closest relatives, the chimpanzee fetus. That is because our closest living relative, that is 98% genetically like is a Bonobo. Any ultrasound would show an ape prior to birth because humans are in the category of great apes, though they aren’t that great. Sometimes I think other apes are smarter, but I’m glad to be a monkey’s aunt. That’s the basic jest of human development, but along the way, sometimes DNA sequencing gets all screwed up and causes various deformities or even death of an unborn or the mother’s life becomes endangered or both.
What you have said is the gist of recapitulation theory (aka ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny). And it convinced me as a child to believe in evolution. It seemed pretty clear to me that embryos would be inexplicably unlikely to mimic development of animals if man had not indeed descended from an animal as Darwin postulated.

What surprises me is that this is still being taught given it has been known to be untrue for over one hundred years. Even wikipedia quotes an evolution textbook calling recapitulation theory “biological mythology”. Consequently the biology of evolution I, and seemingly you, have been taught was based on a poor understanding of biology that no biologist I know holds to today.

So if then this is the most convincing reason to believe in evolution and it is also untrue, why are not better established easier to understand and factually correct reasons taught? A lot of scientific thinking would have to be wrong for evolution to be untrue. However that it is the case that evolution theory is built on lies and dogma, and you will not know that for yourself unless you seek to verify these things for yourself, rather than trusting in the say-so of your professors.

I am only guessing in thinking that you learned this in your sociology class. Perhaps you learned it in one of your other curses. But the same ideology that underpins extreme right-wing thinking appears also to underpin your liberal socialism.

I was confused when I learned history that the national socialists were a right wing party. But this is all beginning to make sense. Hitler was also an early believer in evolution and thought it was fine to kill Jews because he thought them to be sub-human. Perhaps in much the same way evolution is often portrayed with chimp-human intermediates with black skin without a shred of evidence to back up such reconstructions.

What horrifies me is people putting about that people are the problem and less deserving of life than animals.

So I think whatever you have learned in your education and whatever went through the mind of the person who killed GF, was probably underpinned by the same dogmas: evolution is true, unborn babies and blacks are more primitive than other humans, there is no God to judge us and we are just animals anyway.

If you go round telling people that they are animals, is it surprising they behave like them. One of the world’s most famous rapists Mike Tyson stated he was an animal, perhaps he was taught that and didn’t know better.

That isn’t the will of any deity though and medical science and technology has helped to prevent some of these issues. Unfortunately or maybe fortunately, I don’t know, there is no deity that has anything to do with any of that. Yeah, I know “only a fool…” but there is no god that intervenes or anything else into human affairs or human development nor is life or a baby a gift.
If you want to continue to defend your ridiculous and insane religion of evolution, I suggest you read one of the books by Jonathan Wells such as:

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong

“The author, a Berkeley Ph.D in Biology, is not a creationist, but his book describes many serious misrepresentations of facts commonly found in biology textbooks, which are used to perpetuate belief in evolution. The main part of the book describes ten of these icons’, devoting one chapter to each, and shows what is wrong with them in the light of published scientific evidence.”

At least then when you face insane, offensive and opinionated people on the internet such as myself, then you might be giving reasons that have at least some substance to them.

Of course I think but you be better off reading the King James Bible, but what are the chances of that?

But I admire that you had thought about and studied the issue and could provide a reason.

123

@loveofgod

Well, taking counting letters by their position in the alphabet, A=1,B=2,C=3,… gives J=10, E=5, S=19, and U=21. J+E+S+U+S=10+5+19+21+19=74. 7.4 is the pH of blood. It varies from that only in sick people. The pH is finely regulated by breathing. The pH increases in very ill people. This is called acidemia and can be diagnosed by shortness of breath.

Yeah and the time the Jews wandered the dessert is the length of the average gestation. 3 days is the time the Sun goes below the Crux around the time of the winter soltice and then returns OR 6 am the son is born noon is middle age, 6 pm is old age with him dying and rising again. Oh and let’s not forget the Octoad, which is what Jesus actually was. The octoad is perfect and infinite. There is also a thing with the fish and bread too, but I have to look it and refresh my memory on it, but basically Numerology is another one of those mythical philosophies, but some of us have been down that rabbit hole too.

124
If you want to continue to defend your ridiculous and insane religion of evolution, I suggest you read one of the books by Jonathan Wells such as: -- Davey
Every one of his points have been responded to.
Of course I think but you be better off reading the King James Bible, but what are the chances of that?
I have one my mother gave me. Her grandmother gave it to her. Pretty common for atheists to be well versed in the Bible.
125
Pretty common for atheists to be well versed in the Bible.
I have noticed that, also.
126

@loveofgod

I think people somewhat rely on the code already written in their genes and the living nano-factories that operate according to the code. Where does that code come from except it was written.

I didn’t say anything about a code in the sentence prior to your comment. There was no code in this statement I made: “Children are not gifts from any deity and this is where I bring the topic back to science, both hard and soft. They are created or should be created out of love between two people.” Therefore, your comment makes no sense, unless you mean genetic code. If that’s the code you are referring too, it wasn’t written by a deity, but rather 24 DNA meeting from two people (12 each), which humans, called scientists, labeled with AUGC. No god wrote it though, because it relates to cell division. On the other hand, if god did create that DNA, then that would be cool because he created Bonobos 98% genetically like us. That is way cool that they are 98% genetically like us. Don’t know what the other 2% that makes them slightly different though, but it’s awesome they are like us genetically. Love my chimps and I also love Koko the gorilla too.

You seem to be justifying the killing of babies on the basis of definition of words and technicalities.

Deny and reject science much? I hate to say it, but Evolution is true and has been for a long time. I don’t see how anyone can deny we are related to chimps or gorillas when even a child (myself) could see that they look just like us only with more fur. Those who reject it seem to me to not only reject science, but believe humans are superior to all life on earth, when they are not. In fact, I’d dare say we are actually inferior and for many in intelligence even. I see no lie concerning Evolution, but the one thing that is true and personally, I am glad we are related to other animals and what our bodies are comprised of can be found in the universe, which makes us part of the universe too.

blacks are more primitive than other humans

PLEASE! ROFLMAO! If I thought that, then my first husband would not have been black and I would not have had his babies, raising them into adulthood, still calling them my babies. Is this what you believe people who accept Evolution believe? You do not understand evolution if you believe that is what it is about. You thinking is really messed up and you have no idea about Evolution. What you are talking about is what others took from science and corrupted it to justify their ignorant racism. Evolution is not a religion either. Sadly, you show your ignorance in favour of science denial. I have found that people who chose to deny science are not only a danger to the human species survival, but also need to marginalized, because their ignorance drive all life on the planet to extinction. They are also the same people who disgustingly think PETA (not a member) means “People Eating Tasty Animals” and the worst when it comes barbarism and cannibalism.

127

@loveofgod

Of course I think but you be better off reading the King James Bible, but what are the chances of that?

The KJV is the worst translation, according to religious scholars and it was written for King James with translations matching what he wanted, not the actual translation.

128

Speaking of the universe and what we are made of being found in the universe… This is one of my favourite speeches of Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

129

When I 1st saw a gorilla, up close, at the zoo, I was a child. I saw a majestic humanoid that was profoundly depressed. I could see it in his eyes. In retrospect, I know that my impression was correct.

The question that occurred to me, at the time, that I only voiced in passing, was “How could we humans put a fellow creature in a small cage like that, just for our viewing pleasure, day after day for the rest of its life?”

130

@timb Yes, I agree. IMHO, other animals are people in their own right and shouldn’t have to endure the treatment we give them. However, there is another issue with those in captivity. Many cannot be set free to live on their own because 1. they have relied on us for survival for too long, some for a lifetime, and cannot survive on their own. 2. they already have their groups and to set them free, they could be killed by the wild ones of their kind just for trying to join them. 3. If they aren’t killed, they could be rejected and have to live on the outskirts of a group or all alone, which doesn’t contribute to survival.

It is good that we have places like Orangutan Island: Rescuing A Frightened Baby Orangutan Trapped In A Hunter's Home | Orangutan Island - YouTube

That wasn’t the first episode, but you can read about the island here: Orangutan Island - Wikipedia

131

Another Tyson video I enjoy:

132

@mriana

Life is precious, but only because this is the only life we have and we have to make the most of it while we are alive. Even the lives of other animals are precious. Life doesn’t begin until after birth and even the Jews have that in their teachings, which is in the OT for you.
No, it's in their tradition. Their talmud. Jesus made a sharp distinction between the law and the prophets and the traditions of the seventy elders that were added on top.

I don’t think what you claim here is born out (haha) by the following:

Genesis 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.

25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

25:24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

I love my sons dearly and I’m glad I had them both, but that was my choice. I also left their father when the younger son was 6 months and divorced their dad, raising them on my own because he wasn’t a dad, even by the standards of a court of law. I wouldn’t change a thing about any of it. So you don’t have a clue as to what I think of children nor do you have a clue as to what I think about life.
I appreciate this debate has been somewhat lively, and we have started from very different starting positions. We all have struggles and no doubt you have lived your life better than I have mine. It's my desire to come into agreement with you, but that seems unlikely to happen unless we are both open to new understanding. Which by the way what I think what love is, to understand someone. When one understands someone, compassion flows naturally.

I could accuse you of not appreciating the lives of other because you eat meat (if you do that is). Eating the flesh of other animals is a vile act of murder, barbaric, and IMO and view, a form of cannibalism.

Interesting that you bring this up. I remember when I was a vegan and had problems with meat craving I went to a nutritionist, who suggested I was starving needed to eat meat. I was very offended. However, I “had to” in the end. So I have eaten meat much of my life after that, and mostly for health reasons. However, this is something I am reexamining.

When I examine the evidence and arguments of the vegetarians and the carnivores, they confusingly seems both to have good results and reasons for their respective diets. Generally any diet that avoids processed food is an improvement.

The system of animal sacrifice in the bible was only set up after the Israelites complained about the manna they were given to eat and wanted to go back to eating meat like they did in Egypt. God then set up a thorough system of hygiene laws, which also contained hidden symbolism, to allow this to happen, but only after Moses did obeisance to the priest of Media.

It seems to me the way this way set up was that they would only eat meat three times a year in the holiday feasts. And at other times for healing, presumably after God had plagued them for breaking his law.

Now we don’t have manna any more, but we do have the Comforter, if that is we read and hear the Authorised King James Version. And that has brought me health.

I have also gone back to eating unleavened bread made from ancient grain. It’s too early to say for sure whether I remain healthy without meat, but we will see.

None of that comes from any mythology, but rather science or what I make of science. So tell me again that I’d be happy to take a life and throw it against a rock.
Not thee, your culture. But really this doesn't happen with aborted babies. They are generally burned. In my local hospital the heat from the incinerators goes to help heat the hospital.
IMHO that is repulsive, as well as insulting since you don’t know my views on anything, obviously.
Well, it seems we draw closer to knowing.
However, it’s still you who is cherry picking the Bible, because you asked me to show the opposite and showed you a plenty. Meanwhile you just showed one verse to the contrary.
Consider also:

Deuteronomy
18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

2 Kings
16:3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.
17:17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
21:6 And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
23:10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
2 Chronicles
33:6 And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Isaiah
43:2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.
Jeremiah
32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Ezekiel
16:21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?
20:26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.

20:31 For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, even unto this day: and shall I be enquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be enquired of by you.
23:37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.

As for me, the Bible isn’t my guild to living an ethical life and to say it’s the only way to live is not true at all, given all the other philosophies out there that people live by and don’t commit crimes or murder like the dotard has and he calls himself an Xian. He’s not and the problem with that is that he makes atheists look bad because he’s a vile creature, who should be marginalized.
How do we know who Jesus' disciples are. He offers this parable:

Matthew 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.

21:29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.

21:30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.

21:31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

But also more plainly:

Matthew 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

133
No, it’s in their tradition. -- Duhved
Who are you to say where Jews derive their culture? The Tanakh or Torah or OT, whatever you call it, or later traditions?

You want to pick a particular translation of your culture, a written one that came 1,500 years after the original authors, plus a bunch of stuff like numerology added on. Fine, go ahead, but don’t bother me with it.

134
So I think whatever you have learned in your education and whatever went through the mind of the person who killed GF, was probably underpinned by the same dogmas: evolution is true, unborn babies and blacks are more primitive than other humans, there is no God to judge us and we are just animals anyway. - @loveofgod
I'm going to be generous and give him the benefit of the doubt here, but it is poorly written. He's not claiming that blacks are more primitive in this sentence, he's saying that Chauvin was taught that. Which I agree. We have some natural tribalistic tendencies, but we need to be taught to fear skin color.

But I’m not giving this guy a pass. He seems to be enjoying saying dirty words in the context of teaching us religion. We get a lot of these failed cult leaders here. They are not charismatic enough to develop a following, so they come looking for the disenfranchised on skeptic sites and to develop their arguments.

135
@Loveshimself: He desires truthful worship not lip service.
Interesting all you've been able to do is lip service.

 

@Loveshimself: Well, taking counting letters by their position in the alphabet, A=1,B=2,C=3,… gives J=10, E=5, S=19, and U=21. J+E+S+U+S=10+5+19+21+19=74. 7.4 is the pH of blood.
Oh lordie lordie, the games people can play. Find me an ancient bible with the letters J+E+S+U+S.

So the Bible is a medical text too? :-0

@Loveshimself: Your god of Physics punishes people for jumping off a cliff. Is that unfair?
You trying out to do stand up comic or something? That's precious. Oh yeah, and if you don't feed your body you die, Physical Reality is so harsh dude.
@Loveshimself: Actually I take that to be one of the evidences of the supernatural,
You are too wrapped up in yourself to be any judge of God or the supernatural, or Physical Reality for that matter. As for your "holy book" it's a Rorschach test and people have been using it's words to prove their personal opinions for the past couple thousand years.

Well, taking counting letters by their position in the alphabet, by all means; Ιησούς, ኢየሱስ, Jezi, Yesu, Jesu, Isuthi, Ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ, Исус, Jeesus, Jézus, Jisu, เยซู - “Yesu”, Yesu (இயேசு), Исо, Ježiš, ජේසුස් වහන්සේ, Gesù, Иисус, Iisus (I think this one must rhyme with Illusion )

Guess it’s a good thing for you that God was an Amerikan.

 

 

136
Really eloquent way of saying nothing. You used a lot of words to say you are “testing against reality”, but you never actually do that.
Well let me give you some examples:
John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
How can a corn of wheat die before it grows? One might say a dried seed is dead, but then it is dead before it falls into the ground. So then if Jesus is God, why would he use an inaccurate biological analogy. If he created everything then surely his biology would be more accurate. What is going on here?

It turns out that a wheat seed is made of two parts, that I believe in King James English are suitably called the corn and the grain. The body of the wheat seed (the corn) and the germ seed (the grain, that which grows) are two separate living entities. They are formed in a process known as double fertilisation.

Then the analogy serves to form a more beautiful picture of sacrifice, one where the corn lives and dies to provide food for the grain to feed off. Teaching at the same time, it is by feeding on the body of Christ – the word that he has given us – that we grow and have life ourselves.

In another place:

Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:


Here Jesus appears to be saying that speech in some sense proceeds from the heart. Are not the vocal chords controlled by the brain? And how can the heart think anything or even process any information?

If it was any other book, I would just put this down to poetry, or if I had any other bible, I might make excuses, knowing the questioning it only leads to further doubts. But my experience of the King James is that it is worth looking into the biology of this.

It turns out the vagus nerve descends from the brain and enters the heart, branches, with one branch becoming the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which then goes back up (hence recurrent?) to form an alternative nerve path to our voice box. Dawkins makes a big deal of this as being bad design. There is also a relatively new field of neurocardiology, that examines the 40k or so heart neurons that govern the heart. So we can literally speak from our heart or from our minds. Wisdom and understanding come from the heart; it is the principle thing. But my point here is to show that Jesus’ statements are biologically accurate.

Instead you do this:

>But the bible behaves differently.

If I said that about some other book, how would you show me that I’m wrong? Let’s say, “Origin of the Species” behaves differently. Why is that statement wrong?


Let’s examine something in Origin of the Species:

ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION AND COMPLICATION.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

…

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.


Here Darwin puts forth a similarly difficult to believe notion that the eye could form itself, but puts forward a theory with a quite persuasive hypothesis that a feature common to many animals, the eye has formed by a sequence of successive variation and selection, and in portions I have not directly quoted, gives examples in the fauna where he thinks this might have occurred.

He also puts forth a test, namely that if such a sequence of improvements can be shown not to exist, then the theory breaks down.

Well, these things, unlike biblical truths appear not to have stood up to the test. It is clear the eyes in different animals do not arise by descent. In the bible this is explained by different created kinds. In modern biology this is explained by parallel evolution. Either way, it simply does not seem to be the case, nor does giving the theory more latitude seem to improve the situation. With the newer theories, such as neo-Darwinism, the text books need to be rewritten.

The AKJV stands in contrast to that, that even though our understanding may improve, it stands the test of time as a textbook. And it predictions and asserts remain unfalsified.

Darwin’s mistake I believe was to trust in Lyell, who himself built on the work of the Steno, who was a counter-reformationist. So we see again, the religious connection and origin of these ideas.

The bible speaks instead authoritatively and accurately, or to put that with the humility of Darwin, I know no such case where that isn’t the case. It also does not draw on outside sources. Yet is a book very much about the world and the nature of truth, creation and the creator, and importantly how to live.

137

@citizenschallengev3

Guess it’s a good thing for you that God was an Amerikan.

That’s good. lol I often find that many Xians think the original Bible was written in English and not in Greek. Not only that, too many think Ιησούς was white with blue eyes, when he was not, if he ever existed. It’s crazy all the human concepts of Ιησούς, which they truly believe are real and not one iota is fictionalized. They’d be surprised what the Greek says, if they were to learn Greek. Too many people are ignorant about their own religion because they don’t research it and learn the origin and original teaching. They also believe that Xianity is a peaceful religion. If they only knew how the original Xians were, how many non-Xians they murdered, how many books and property they destroyed in an effort to spread the religion like a virus, and how it did spread like a virus- at least in one form, for the most violent killed off or infected even the Gnostics.

138

@loveofgod If only you studied Greek and delved into your religious more deeply and even questioned your beliefs, maybe you’d be talking in a more informed view of your religion, if you still believed it. You know nothing about the origins or even know the slightest bit of Greek. You also know very little about science and it show in what you’re saying, yet you believe you know all about religion and science. I feel sorry for you because you refuse to educate yourself. Then again, maybe I shouldn’t pity willful ignorance, because making a greater effort to educate doesn’t help when a mind is closed and refuses to question their beliefs. Oh and again, any real scholar will tell you that the KJV and NKJV are the worst translations, but yet you keep referring to the KJV. Again, you show ignorance and/or lack of willingness to actually learn about your own religion or what you claim to be your religion.

139
Well, these things, unlike biblical truths appear not to have stood up to the test. It is clear the eyes in different animals do not arise by descent. In the bible this is explained by different created kinds. In modern biology this is explained by parallel evolution. - LOG
That was as thorough as anything I’ve seen. Wrong. But thorough. You show an understanding of, or at least a familiarity with, words like “falisifiable” and “hypothesis”, but you didn’t really do what I asked. You sort of repeated what I said but used a whole bunch more words. A 7 year old would get bored and just ask you to tell them the right answer. As an adult, you should move beyond that.

What test did evolution not stand up to? What made it clear that eyes in different animals did not arise by descent? Or, are we just agreeing that parallel evolution is a real thing, how does that disprove evolution? It’s hard to tell when you wave your hands with “Either way…”

140
seeing some cracks in this guy’s fake persona. Shouldn’t be long now
I perceive a draught.

It’s cold, but quite refreshing.

Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.