Is the bible a fairy tale?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3156 Jul 11, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 19:16
Do not go about spreading slander among your people.

And that is **exactly** what you've been doing....!

Hypocrite.
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#3157 Jul 12, 2013
ICR - Inane Christard Revisions.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
ICR:
"The passage? "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust ... the beetle ... and the grasshopper after his kind" (Leviticus 11:21,22). Tucked within a list of dietary regulations for the people of Israel, it refers to a number of animals whose exact identification is obscured by antiquity. But let's look closely.
First, we must recognize that modern day taxonomic categories, like species, genus, family, etc., are not the same as the Biblical "kind." Even the term "creeping thing" finds wide application meaning, in general, small animals which exist in great numbers. In this chapter it is used for insects (v. 21), various small mammals and reptiles (vv. 29,30), as well as animals which "move" in the ocean (v. 10).
Likewise the term "flying" applies both to flying insects and birds (vv. 13-19). Obviously, the context and description must take precedence in identification, and in this case, the "four legged insect" applies, in particular, to the grasshopper/locust kind.
In our modern classification system, all insects have at least six legs. They are members of the large and varied arthropod phyla, which includes also the eight-legged spiders, the multi-legged centipedes, as well as crabs—anything with segmented legs. Some insects also have wings, but these don't count as legs.
Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping." Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle. Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct. Far from being an embarrassment to Bible believers, this passage bears sterling testimony to the accuracy and inspiration of Scripture. As always, arguments which claim that the Bible is wrong are themselves wrong, and the Bible still stands!
It was interesting that when the student made the claim of the Bible's error, it followed my 90-minute lecture on the scientific evidence for creation. I had not directly mentioned the Bible. The question, as were several others, was a smoke screen—an effort to sidestep the issue. But even if the Bible has an error (which it doesn't), that still doesn't produce transitional fossils, or identify beneficial mutations, or account for the exquisite design in living things. Such diversionary tactics are really a futile attempt to avoid the personal implications of creation.
For if creation is true and the Bible is trustworthy, then the Creator has authority over our lives and lifestyles, and someday we must stand before our Maker and give account for our actions and choices. And that is the real issue. No smoke screen can cancel that appointment."
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#3158 Jul 12, 2013
You normally defend the bible.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
B - bull crap
U - unproven theory
Y - yelled from the roof tops
B - beseeching all to listen to an
U - unscientific
L - loony toon
L - lie
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#3159 Jul 12, 2013
Not only does the bible say insects have just four legs, it also says birds have four legs.

The bible is batshit crazy.
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#3160 Jul 12, 2013
It's "thread's", you abject thicko.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
booby I don't hate you.
Why you're this threads court jester.
We're not laughing with you booby we're laughing at you.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3161 Jul 12, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>You normally defend the bible.
At you cut out an important line.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3162 Jul 12, 2013
Thinking wrote:
ICR - Inane Christard Revisions.
<quoted text>
I think you are too kind here...

It's more like Insane Christard Revisions.

But is "insane christard" redundant?

Or is it that among your average christards, who are all insane, this one is even more insane?

Hmmmm...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3163 Jul 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>I think you are too kind here...

It's more like Insane Christard Revisions.

But is "insane christard" redundant?

Or is it that among your average christards, who are all insane, this one is even more insane?

Hmmmm...
booby your hate is showing

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3164 Jul 12, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"No, I am attempting to get your definition of 'kind'. Why, by your definition, are all cats the same 'kind', but not all 'carnivores? Why not all mammals?"
Created kinds are organisms that are defined by creation biology as sharing a common ancestry. The phrase refers to the Genesis account of the creation week during which God created many kinds of plants and animals. They are also referred to as "original kinds," "Genesis kinds," and more formally by creation scientists as baramin The term barmin was coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). The study of baramin (known as Baraminology) is a rapidly growing field of creation science involved with the identification of the created kinds.[1]
The concept of the "created kind" originates from the biblical book of Genesis where it is first mentioned in chapter 1.
"The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day... Then God said,'Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.' God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying,'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.' There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Then God said,'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind'; and it was so."Genesis 1:12-24
In contrast to the evolutionary principle of common ancestry, creation biologists argue that organisms were created in a finite number of discrete forms as described in the Bible, which subsequently diversified through speciation and microevolution. There is much uncertainty about what exactly the Bible means when it talks of "kinds".
And so once again, how do you determine that all cats have a common ancestor in your system? How about all trees? What observations do you make to establish these?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3165 Jul 12, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
ICR:
"The passage? "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust ... the beetle ... and the grasshopper after his kind" (Leviticus 11:21,22). Tucked within a list of dietary regulations for the people of Israel, it refers to a number of animals whose exact identification is obscured by antiquity. But let's look closely.
First, we must recognize that modern day taxonomic categories, like species, genus, family, etc., are not the same as the Biblical "kind." Even the term "creeping thing" finds wide application meaning, in general, small animals which exist in great numbers. In this chapter it is used for insects (v. 21), various small mammals and reptiles (vv. 29,30), as well as animals which "move" in the ocean (v. 10).
Likewise the term "flying" applies both to flying insects and birds (vv. 13-19). Obviously, the context and description must take precedence in identification, and in this case, the "four legged insect" applies, in particular, to the grasshopper/locust kind.
In our modern classification system, all insects have at least six legs. They are members of the large and varied arthropod phyla, which includes also the eight-legged spiders, the multi-legged centipedes, as well as crabs—anything with segmented legs. Some insects also have wings, but these don't count as legs.
Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping." Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle. Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct. Far from being an embarrassment to Bible believers, this passage bears sterling testimony to the accuracy and inspiration of Scripture. As always, arguments which claim that the Bible is wrong are themselves wrong, and the Bible still stands!
It was interesting that when the student made the claim of the Bible's error, it followed my 90-minute lecture on the scientific evidence for creation. I had not directly mentioned the Bible. The question, as were several others, was a smoke screen—an effort to sidestep the issue. But even if the Bible has an error (which it doesn't), that still doesn't produce transitional fossils, or identify beneficial mutations, or account for the exquisite design in living things. Such diversionary tactics are really a futile attempt to avoid the personal implications of creation.
For if creation is true and the Bible is trustworthy, then the Creator has authority over our lives and lifestyles, and someday we must stand before our Maker and give account for our actions and choices. And that is the real issue. No smoke screen can cancel that appointment."
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
None of which answers the question of how to tell whether two insects are of the same 'kind' or not. or two mammals, or two birds, or two reptiles, or two sponges, or two bacteria. Without a well defined operational definition, the notion of 'kind' is completely useless.

So, how do you know that all 'cats' of of the same 'kind'?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3166 Jul 12, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
booby your hate is showing
Irony of you using a hate-name for me is ... amusing.

What else, from a hate-cultist?

P.S. Where's your hate-sock who's obsessed with fat women?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3167 Jul 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Irony of you using a hate-name for me is ... amusing.
What else, from a hate-cultist?
P.S. Where's your hate-sock who's obsessed with fat women?
Instead of having the balls to prove their god, creationists just demonstrate how much hate they can spew at atheists in a given amount of time.

There will be treatments for this mental illness in future, so that the rest of the sane world can live without being bothered by arrogant mentally ill people.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3168 Jul 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Irony of you using a hate-name for me is ... amusing.

What else, from a hate-cultist?

P.S. Where's your hate-sock who's obsessed with fat women?
booby your hate is showing again

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3169 Jul 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of having the balls to prove their god, creationists just demonstrate how much hate they can spew at atheists in a given amount of time.
There will be treatments for this mental illness in future, so that the rest of the sane world can live without being bothered by arrogant mentally ill people.
Yep.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3170 Jul 13, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
booby your hate is showing again
Irony of you using a hate-name for me is ... amusing.

What else, from a hate-cultist?

P.S. Where's your hate-sock who's obsessed with fat women?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3171 Jul 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Ironing for you sir
You like ironing?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3172 Jul 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>None of which answers the question of how to tell whether two insects are of the same 'kind' or not. or two mammals, or two birds, or two reptiles, or two sponges, or two bacteria. Without a well defined operational definition, the notion of 'kind' is completely useless.

So, how do you know that all 'cats' of of the same 'kind'?
Polly

How can anything happen without time?

There was no time until the BB happened. Where did time come from and why?

How can time come into being when there was no time? Nothing can change states with out time. Nothing can exist with out time. Yet science claims time started 13.7 billion years ago.

How can nothing explode and create everything?

Pretty weird myths you all believe in.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3173 Jul 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Leviticus 19:16
Do not go about spreading slander among your people.

And that is **exactly** what you've been doing....!

Hypocrite.
Just for you booby.

"It's the law in most states and the law of the bible. Just because it's not really enforced much any more doesn't mean you are not breaking the law.

"Eight years later, however, eighteen states still refuse to rewrite their laws and take these anti-gay relics off their books, with countless LGBT Americans continuing to feel their devastating effects as a result. Several state legislatures and courts have exploited loopholes in the Lawrence decision, while others have simply refused to acknowledge the decision altogether.

Continued Enforcement

Nearly a decade after Lawrence, many states have continued to enforce laws prohibiting private, consensual sex between same-sex adults.

In Michigan, the practice of charging and convicting gay men under the state’s “Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature” or “Gross Indecency” laws still exists, with violators facing the risk of having to register as sex offenders and prison sentences of up to 15 years. According to Rudy Serra, attorney and Chairman of the Executive Clemency Council for the State of Michigan, police officers continue toaggressively prosecute LGBT people without legal challenge:

The legislature still has not repealed the sodomy and gross indecency statutes, even after Lawrence v. Texas, and ultra-conservative ("strict constructionist") judges still continue to enforce the "legislative intent" to criminalize gay sex, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court says.

LGBT people in Michigan continue to be charged with crimes for public speech, in which they let another person know they are interested in private, unpaid sex with another adult. Bag-A-Fag(undercover decoy cop) operations, where police officers pretend to be gay men cruising for unpaid, consensual sex continue in Michigan. LGBT people are still at risk of spending 15 years in state prison for acts that are perfectly legal in most other states.[emphasis added]
Even in states where sodomy laws are understood by judges to be unconstitutional, the presence of sodomy laws can cause gays and lesbians to be dragged into humiliating, costly, and discriminatory legal disputes."

http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201108080012

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3174 Jul 13, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You like ironing?
It's a flattening chore, sometimes.

But I won't say I like it all that much.

It does let me blow off some steam though.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3175 Jul 13, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Just for you booby.
Irony of you using a hate-name for me is ... amusing.

What else, from a hate-cultist?

The rest of your hateshit is ignored, unread.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Science 83,138
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Sat Science 2,565
High School Atheism Nov 14 Reason Personified 3
Reasoning with Insanity (Jun '16) Nov 14 Reason Personified 106
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Nov 14 Eagle 12 - 3,988
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... (May '17) Nov 6 Frindly 1,175
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing Oct 24 xfrodobagginsx 1
More from around the web