Two! Four! Six! Eight! JaySecrets Prevaricates!

[Bn2f]

Everything you said boils down to this one statement. That's the core of what evolution has when it is pointed out that there is zero tangible evidence of change from one kind into another. "We don't know. We will find out in time." You know what that is called? Blind faith.

I’m pretty sure 1174 is not defining “I (we) don’t know” as you just did.

 

[ll74]

Everything you said boils down to this one statement. That's the core of what evolution has when it is pointed out that there is zero tangible evidence of change from one kind into another. "We don't know. We will find out in time." You know what that is called? Blind faith.

That's not how it works. Science can identify when there are missing pieces to a puzzle. People come up with theories about those missing pieces and test them until a theory is tested repeatedly and observed to be correct. Then those pieces are filled in.

Religion doesn't have any theories except a god who fills in those pieces without question. There is no need to find pieces because you can just say god and be correct. And the best part is that you can interpret your clear text to fill any any piece you want. People do it all the time.

But you wouldn't know that because you think these creationists are using "common sense" and "science" to explain the world.

All of science has always been, we don't know until we know. And that will always be the case.

But please, tell us all how the Bible explains quantum theory.

 

[Bn2f]

I’m pretty sure 1174 is not defining “I (we) don’t know” as you just did.

Here’s to hoping he will reply and clarify for the both of us.

 

[Bn2f]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

 

[JaySecrets]

They interpret your book differently than you do. The text is very clear to you one way and very clear to them another.

If I say in a letter to you, "I have a car. That car is blue. It is a Nissan Sentra. It is parked in my driveway. The keys are in the car and I leave it unlocked. You are free to use that car any time you need it without cost. Just let me know when you do so I can make sure to have gas in it." If someone else comes along and sees what I wrote to you, if several someones come along, the text still isn't up for interpretation. It is very clear. The Bible is written in language that is just as clear. Love your enemies. Love one another. I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me. It's not open for interpretation. It says what it says.

People take out verses that aren't relevant to them all the time....which is why you can wear polyester and not be stoned to death.

You cite laws given to a specific people for a specific time and purpose. Yet the Bible itself (read the Book of Hebrews for example) spells out the point of what those laws were for. It doesn't leave room for private opinions on that.

And people weren't stoned for wearing mixed cloth. There is a specific combination of materials that was forbidden, but the penalty was never death.

https://biblicallaw.org/content/myth-death-penalty-wearing-mixed-fabrics-0

But I'm sure you changing text to be metaphorical when you need it to be is fine, but when they do it, it's wrong.

I object to anyone changing literal into metaphor without the text itself justifying it in any text.

 

[ll74]

If I say in a letter to you, "I have a car. That car is blue. It is a Nissan Sentra. It is parked in my driveway. The keys are in the car and I leave it unlocked. You are free to use that car any time you need it without cost. Just let me know when you do so I can make sure to have gas in it." If someone else comes along and sees what I wrote to you, if several someones come along, the text still isn't up for interpretation. It is very clear. The Bible is written in language that is just as clear. Love your enemies. Love one another. I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me. It's not open for interpretation. It says what it says.

Lol, the Bible has study groups all over the world on what the words mean. Pastors give sermons to explain to his parish what the book means.

If you think they all come to the same conclusions about the text, you would be wrong.

You cite laws given to a specific people for a specific time and purpose. Yet the Bible itself (read the Book of Hebrews for example) spells out the point of what those laws were for. It doesn't leave room for private opinions on that.

So as I said before....your explanation is that they aren't real Christians. It wasn't a stretch.

And people weren't stoned for wearing mixed cloth. There is a specific combination of materials that was forbidden, but the penalty was never death.

https://biblicallaw.org/content/myth-death-penalty-wearing-mixed-fabrics-0

I object to anyone changing literal into metaphor without the text itself justifying it in any text.

Lol...it's funny how you find an interpretation that makes that work. I'm sure that was there before polyester was created

I can see biblical scholars having that discussion:
Pastor Bob: I like polyester, why can't we wear it?
Pastor Jim: The Bible says we can't.
Pastor Bob: but I like it
Pastor Jim: let's make that passage mean something else and make a wiki page about it

 

[JaySecrets]

That's not how it works. Science can identify when there are missing pieces to a puzzle. People come up with theories about those missing pieces and test them until a theory is tested repeatedly and observed to be correct. Then those pieces are filled in.

So show me tangible evidence of one missing link. Just one.

Religion doesn't have any theories except a god who fills in those pieces without question. There is no need to find pieces because you can just say god and be correct. And the best part is that you can interpret your clear text to fill any any piece you want. People do it all the time.

That's not how it works at all.

But you wouldn't know that because you think these creationists are using "common sense" and "science" to explain the world.

And you are blind because you assume Christian scientists are not real scientists and therefore refuse to seriously examine the extensive evidence they present.

All of science has always been, we don't know until we know. And that will always be the case.

But please, tell us all how the Bible explains quantum theory.

https://medium.com/pelos-press/biblical-christianity-quantum-physics-and-spirituality-fe199db50a08

https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/gods-name-quantum-physics

 

[ll74]

So show me tangible evidence of one missing link. Just one.

There have been a multitude of missing links addressed over the centuries with every discovery.

That's not how it works at all.

Incorrect. Up until the sixties, people interpreted the Bible to not allow interracial marriages. To not allow blacks to access the same thing as whites.

Guess what they did once it became socially unacceptable? Changed the interpretation.

And you are blind because you assume Christian scientists are not real scientists and therefore refuse to seriously examine the extensive evidence they present.

https://medium.com/pelos-press/biblical-christianity-quantum-physics-and-spirituality-fe199db50a08

https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/gods-name-quantum-physics

Creationism isn't a science.

But looky there, the whole we don't understand something so it has to be god explanation. Who woulda thunk?

Gravity was explained as being a god until we observed how it works.

 

[JaySecrets]

There have been a multitude of missing links addressed over the centuries with every discovery.

So give one. One example. Not a claim of many. Just one specific.

Incorrect. Up until the sixties, people interpreted the Bible to not allow interracial marriages. To not allow blacks to access the same thing as whites.

That was not a use of the Bible in its context. That was an imposing on the text something it never said or taught. And there were many Christians who disagrees with the racists because the text doesn't support it in any way if you read it for what it says.

Guess what they did once it became socially unacceptable? Changed the interpretation.

Creationism isn't a science.

So go to the ICR and Answers in Genesis web sites, examine the extensive evidence they present, and disprove it. Should be easy enough, those highly degreed and experienced scientists not being real scientists and all.

But looky there, the whole we don't understand something so it has to be god explanation. Who woulda thunk?

Looky there, you can't point to actual evidence of evolution between kinds, and you just say "millions of years" can't be observed. Sorry. Just have to take our word for it. Who woulda thunk?

Gravity was explained as being a god until we observed how it works.

And, funny, it was a devout Believer who also wrote profoundly on theology who discovered it. Who woulda thunk.

 

[ll74]

So give one. One example. Not a claim of many. Just one specific.

Gravity.

That was not a use of the Bible in its context. That was an imposing on the text something it never said or taught. And there were many Christians who disagrees with the racists because the text doesn't support it in any way if you read it for what it says.

So it was an interpretation of the text. Interesting.

Retcons always work like that.

So go to the ICR and Answers in Genesis web sites, examine the extensive evidence they present, and disprove it. Should be easy enough, those highly degreed and experienced scientists not being real scientists and all.

You see interpretation of Scripture as evidence. It is not.

Looky there, you can't point to actual evidence of evolution between kinds, and you just say "millions of years" can't be observed. Sorry. Just have to take our word for it. Who woulda thunk?

I can and have....you just dismiss fossil record as observable and repeatable science, even though it is.

And, funny, it was a devout Believer who also wrote profoundly on theology who discovered it. Who woulda thunk.

Lots of people discovee things. The gap that was addressed wasn't gravity but rather what is responsible for gravity. Newton wasn't the first to discover it ..he was the first known person to suggest it had a bigger role in our lives

 

[JaySecrets]

Lol, the Bible has study groups all over the world on what the words mean. Pastors give sermons to explain to his parish what the book means.

Application, not meaning. Huge difference. A pastor who comes up with a novel meaning... The Bible warns to avoid those types.

If you think they all come to the same conclusions about the text, you would be wrong.

On essential texts, true Christians hold the same creed. On texts on obscure cultural issues, there is room for disagreement. On areas where they aren't salvation issues, there is room for disagreement. And Christians learn from each other and love each other in these.

So as I said before....your explanation is that they aren't real Christians. It wasn't a stretch.


Lol...it's funny how you find an interpretation that makes that work. I'm sure that was there before polyester was created

Yes, the clear biblical text existed before polyester.

I can see biblical scholars having that discussion:
Pastor Bob: I like polyester, why can't we wear it?
Pastor Jim: The Bible says we can't.
Pastor Bob: but I like it
Pastor Jim: let's make that passage mean something else and make a wiki page about it

Hmmm... Amusing. I suppose you can provide the evidence of this scene happening?

 

[ll74]

Application, not meaning. Huge difference. A pastor who comes up with a novel meaning... The Bible warns to avoid those types.

Lol

On essential texts, true Christians hold the same creed. On texts on obscure cultural issues, there is room for disagreement. On areas where they aren't salvation issues, there is room for disagreement. And Christians learn from each other and love each other in these.

Lol

Yes, the clear biblical text existed before polyester.

Lol

Hmmm... Amusing. I suppose you can provide the evidence of this scene happening?

Lol

Your explanations of clear inconsistencies are amusing. Thanks for that....made me laugh

 

[JaySecrets]

Gravity.

A Christian gave the answer for that one.

So it was an interpretation of the text. Interesting.

No, it was imposing outside ideas onto the text. That's not interpretation of anything. That's just trying to force the text beyond it's natural scope or meaning.

You see interpretation of Scripture as evidence. It is not.

No, I am saying go and look at their hard science. They give it in spades. Disprove it. Should be easy enough.

I can and have....you just dismiss fossil record as observable and repeatable science, even though it is.

I am saying the fossil record is mixed, has fossils all over the board, has upsidedown trees on various levels of fossilization through multiple layers, animal fossils stuck between layers. I am saying that the actual, physical record jibes with the flood, not evolution. Prove me wrong by addressing the issues I just raised.

Lots of people discovee things. The gap that was addressed wasn't gravity but rather what is responsible for gravity. Newton wasn't the first to discover it ..he was the first known person to suggest it had a bigger role in our lives

 

[JaySecrets]

Your explanations of clear inconsistencies are amusing. Thanks for that....made me laugh

Problem is that you equate inconsistent actions or statements by some claiming Christians with inconsistency in the text and its clarity. People don't define the Book. The Book defines the Book.

 

[ll74]

A Christian gave the answer for that one.

Lol...umm...nope. The full theory of gravity was put together by multiple scientists, as is most scientific knowledge

No, it was imposing outside ideas onto the text. That's not interpretation of anything. That's just trying to force the text beyond it's natural scope or meaning.

Of course

No, I am saying go and look at their hard science. They give it in spades. Disprove it. Should be easy enough.

They don't do that.

I am saying the fossil record is mixed, has fossils all over the board, has upsidedown trees on various levels of fossilization through multiple layers, animal fossils stuck between layers. I am saying that the actual, physical record jibes with the flood, not evolution. Prove me wrong by addressing the issues I just raised.

Yes, you say fossil record isn't accurate, which is incorrect. Lots of people in your "field of study" use it to try and prove things about your dude.

 

[JaySecrets]

Your explanations of clear inconsistencies are amusing. Thanks for that....made me laugh

Other issue. You treat your imaginary conversations between imaginary people as though they happen and can be used to explain Christianity.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

it is ludicrous to say that it is somehow unreliable on other fronts. You simply don't want the accountability of believing.

Where does being younger than other portions equate unreliable? My argument I have made on your points in the Bible have never been that most events in Bible never occurred. My argument has been on how they have been written and understood and promoted over the multiple centuries.

Look at it this way. You could "raise someone from the dead" or even arise from the dead yourself (CPR). "Make water into wine" (common wine kits). Most of the "miracles" in the bible then are common place today.

You put your Faith in textual records written by peoples 2000 to 3000 years ago. I have based my "beliefs" on repeatable scientific facts. Those facts are a provable today, as they were when discovered. Nothing in the Bible can be repeated, or reproduced. The bible is not tangible.

You want to have your faith, I have no issue. Just keep it to yourself and others who hold similar views, don't come here and tell us it's the one true faith and we have to follow your bullshit.

 

[ll74]

Problem is that you equate inconsistent actions or statements by some claiming Christians with inconsistency in the text and its clarity. People don't define the Book. The Book defines the Book.

If only there was a term for that ¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯

 

[ll74]

Other issue. You treat your imaginary conversations between imaginary people as though they happen and can be used to explain Christianity.

Lol..of course

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The problem is that what was predicted happened well after they were sealed. In detail. Down the the names. There is no two books solution. The scrolls prove that, and the only ones denying that are the ones who are rabidly anti-scripture. Even honest sceptics disagree with you.

Nostradamus did the same thing. Hell we have people here on this form "predicting". Someone could find a copy of Jules Verne's 20,000 leagues beneath the seas in 10,000 years from now,and make the claim Jules Verne was predicting the future.

 

[RoryN]

....and thus the tradition of the least-knowledgeable Christians "godsplaining" to everyone else on Lit continues.

 

[JaySecrets]

They don't do that.

https://www.icr.org/
https://answersingenesis.org/

Easily proven. Here's the websites. Go to the science articles and have at it. I'll be waiting for your scholarly rebuttals.

Yes, you say fossil record isn't accurate, which is incorrect. Lots of people in your "field of study" use it to try and prove things about your dude.

So address the very obvious and observable problems of your theories about the fossil record when what I just described is there. A tree just sat, not rotting, upsidedown for millions of years while the layers formed around it? Dead and dying animals got stuck in the slowly forming layers, got stuck between the layers, and managed to not decay before the next layers formed?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Everything you said boils down to this one statement. That's the core of what evolution has when it is pointed out that there is zero tangible evidence of change from one kind into another. "

There is example evidence of Evolution. I was just reading an article the other day about how a species of birds beak has changed in a very short period of time, since climate change has affected the birds native food. The problem with you is you discard that information or any information or evidence that goes against your belief. While I and others don't take one person's "proof" as fact. Not until others can reproduce that "proof".

 

[ll74]

Oh look, parts of the Bible were used (the clear text) to say interracial marriage is against god. Weird.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE?​

A few passages in Scripture were used to oppose interracial marriage or promote the idea that some peoples are inferior to others. The most famous such passage is the so-called “Curse of Ham,” which we addressed at length. Other passages warn Old Testament Israelites not to take foreign spouses.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

....and thus the tradition of the least-knowledgeable Christians "godsplaining" to everyone else on Lit continues.

Hey give him credit, he claims to have taken a couple College courses....he's ed,u,em,cated....