Some people

[LiveFreeorDie]

Please feel free to provide any evidence you have that a single word in the bible is true.

God knew that the world was round before scientists discovered it.

Isaiah 40:22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
    and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
    and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

God knew the earth was hung on nothing (which seemed impossible to ancient man) before humans discovered it. Humans had previously believed ideas such as the world rests on the back of a large turtle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle)

Job 26:7

He hangs the earth on nothing.

God knew about invisible particles that make up everything we see before science discovered atoms.

Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

God knew about germs and disease long before humans discovered them, and instructed the use of running water for cleansing, which doctors in the 1800s still hadn't figured out. Ignaz Semmelweis was mocked, ridiculed, and rejected for suggesting that doctors wash their hands before examining birthing mothers (who were dying from puerperal fever at alarming rates). The mortality rate for mothers dropped by 90% when handwashing was used.

Leviticus 15:13

And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean.

[LiveFreeorDie]

I have a moral code that does NOT include lying, cheating, stealing, raping, killing, bullying, racism, homophobia and a whole lot of other stuff that the bible is quite ok with.

The Bible isn't okay with these things.

Tell me about your moral code?

What is right and wrong and how do you know?

What is that code based on?

If the physical is all there is, and there is no author of the universe, then how can there be a basis for morality?

How can there be a basis for reason, if our existence is a chance accident? How can we trust our thoughts? And why does it even matter?

If we randomly evolved following the explosion of nothing billions of years ago, on what can the concepts or ideas of "right" and "wrong" be based?

Also, if the device is "clearly very simple" as you suggest, then it should be an easy task for you to make one. I invite you to post pics and videos of your very simple creation.

[CumSavorer4385]

the fuck is this thread lol

[CumSavorer4385]

The best way to insure the destruction of anything in nature/reality is to make sure that the weak survive long enough to drag the rest of the population of that species to the grave with them.  Humans didnt survive this planet because they were weak.  The lived long and prospered because they killed, maimed, stole, and enslaved every usable resource that happened to cross their path and they were not 'nice' about any of it.  If they were,  they wouldnt have made it past year 1.

Let that sink in for a bit and then re-think the "everyone is a winner and gentle and nice" road that is being hand fed to kids today.  Live isnt a bunch of rosey people who give everything to you.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is destined for a miserable life that they themselves are the architect of,  not the bullies.  I was bullied many times as a kid and I am a better person because of it.  So some excuse that you suck at everything you do because poor you was bullied in school is just a weak cop out.  Some think that just because I was excellent with sports and what not that I never got bullied the way these 'kids today do and that I am to hard on them.  Thats just a bunch of horseshit.  They are made out of the same organic material that I was,  absolutely nothing is different about 'todays kids' other than the way they are being taught wrong,  the world isnt all candy and playdates.  I dont take shit from anyone and I certainly dont rely upon anyone to provide for me either.

Grow a pair.  Thats what I teach.  In the end only the strong will survive.  That's been the case for 4 billion years and its not going to change any time soon just because it's not nice.

You're not only a petty cheater at video games but you're a deranged psycho who does weird hacking/stalking shit on people on this forum. You're also probably like 60 years old at this point. Please get bowel cancer and die

[CumSavorer4385]

Babyshark is a deranged right wing meme sharing Facebook mom with an opioid and alcohol problem who should shoot some fentanyl ASAP

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

There is no known scientific mechanism that allows for the creation of new information required for new features, like wings or lungs or bones or kidneys or a mouth or feathers.

yea i don't think that's how evolution works.

[Lambchops]

Collins also contains the "word" MILF, that does't mean it isn't a term invented by people peddling online porn in the late '90s.

Are you saying your definition of evolution is different from the one in this dictionary?

My point was about the term "evolutionist" not the word "evolution". In fact that was the first dictionary definition you quoted. Pretty sure you are just trolling me now.

There are a number of different meanings for the word evolution and the different things that have come into existence.

No. There is only one meaning for the word evolution, and that is not it. Evolution describes a change that happens over time, it does not describe the origin of any basic object, only how a system changes.

Stellar evolution: the origin of stars
Chemical evolution: the origin of the elements
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, matter from a "big bang" of nothing exploding into the universe
Organic evolution: the origin of life from non-life
Macro-evolution: the changing of.....
                                                ......ONLY micro-evolution is scientific

Ok if you really want to know then pay attention to this bit: None of those things are scientific. I'm pretty sure you've sourced them from some religious propoganda material or other, but I do know they didn't come from science or the correct definition of the word "evolution". This is just someone trying to construct a house of cards on top of a bed of split-hairs in order to deny the blatently obvious.

There is no known scientific mechanism that allows for the creation of new information required for new features, like wings or lungs or bones or kidneys or a mouth or feathers.

I believe it's called "evolution". It's a very well known, well studied and well documented process.

And the wings have to work properly the first time or the creature will just be carrying around extra weight and baggage that is both useless and cumbersome and would have no reason to be retained. Wings are clearly a designed feature that can't come into existence randomly or by trial and error or chance.

Spend enough time jumping from one tree to the next and the guy with the best surface area to mass ratio has an advantage --- SUGAR GLIDER

Same with an eye. You can't have a non-functioning eye that serves any purpose, being half-complete. The eye needs all the parts functioning correctly out of the gate for it to work.

Not if you are a simple prehistoric creature living in a swamp full of similar creatures and you just want to find the sun. Then all you need is a single photo-sensative cell and you can tell which way the top of the swamp is. This would be so helpfull that your offspring would continue to develop more of these cells.

How about the circulatory system. Which came first? Blood, blood vessels, or the heart? If you have blood but no ....  (etc)

Ok this is a good one. 1) blood 2)blood vessels/heart
Many simple creatures dont have a proper circulatory system, they just have their organs floating around in a bunch of goop. When they move the goop kinda squishes around. the next thing that develops is valves, which just have a tendancy to allow more goop to squish in one direction that the other, which encourages the goop to actually circulate. at this point the entire creature can be thought of as a heart ... or a blood vessel. Obviously over many generations the creature with the best circulation has a definate advantage so the system becomes more and more refined.

How about male/female? Which came first, the male or the female? If the male came first, where did he put the sperm while waiting for the female to evolve? If the female came first, how did she get pregnant to produce a child while waiting for the male to evolve?

You'll like this. hehe. men are a virus. way back when life was very simple a chunk of dna came about that worked by sticking its dna into something else and letting that thing replicate it, instead of replicating by itself. This was a massive boon for life because it enabled the transfer of genetic traits and encouraged diversity which led to much faster and more efficiant evolution. The sperm, the womb and all the related naughty bits evolved later once this system was already in place.

This is why, despite the fact that asexual reproduction was around first, the forms of life that have evolved from the sexually reproductive branch (plants/animals/us!) have evolved much further in a shorter amount of time than the asexual forms of life like bacteria, which remain very simple.


Ok, now I've explained some evolution to you, here's a couple of questions:

The bible was written by men right? I mean even if they are writing down what they remembered hearing Jesus say or whatever else was going on at the time, they were all just men ya? There is no gospel of Jesus, let alone a gospel of GOD. So then after these men wrote it down the way they remembered it, then other men transcribed what they had written multiple times, and into multiple languages. Then a bunch of men sat down and decided which of these stories they thought were best and which ones they didn't like, then they put those stories into a book and called it "The Bible" and declared it to be the word of GOD. Men did that right?

As I understand it the bible tells you not to covert another man's wife (with the implication that she is his property), but it doesn't say you shouldn't rape your own wife ya? ... or famale slaves, or children?? (altar boys spring to mind!).... now I'm certainly not saying that GOD didn't forbid these things when he was spelling out our morals for us, but perhaps some MEN edited those bits out?

Hehe... also the bible says that PI = 3 ..... Yeah like I'm pretty damn sure GOD knows how to draw a circle, but I'm guessing that the men who were writing all this stuff down then rewriting it etc. probably didnt have the math skills to write down 3.14159265358979323846 so they just kinda rounded it down ya?.... the word of GOD.... they just kinda.... sorta... rounded it down a bit - ya? 

[Lambchops]

I have a moral code that does NOT include lying, cheating, stealing, raping, killing, bullying, racism, homophobia and a whole lot of other stuff that the bible is quite ok with.

The Bible isn't okay with these things.

Not all of them, and ....a whole lot of other stuff... and the bible has a very long history used of being used to justify hate crimes.

Tell me about your moral code?

I believe I just did give you a very simple outline above, but further to that....

What is right and wrong and how do you know?

What is that code based on?

.... the entire point is that we are required to take resposibility for our own deeds, to weigh the consequences of our actions and interactions and make judgement as to their virtue or malevolence based on what we find in our own souls. Life if far to complicated to just look up all the answers on a cheat-sheet. 

Furthermore no such cheat-sheet exists to cover all possible moral dilemmas. The obvious ones (Tho shalt not kill) seem easy but life is not always black and white.

If the physical is all there is, and there is no author of the universe, then how can there be a basis for morality?

How can there be a basis for reason, if our existence is a chance accident? How can we trust our thoughts? And why does it even matter?

If we randomly evolved following the explosion of nothing billions of years ago, on what can the concepts or ideas of "right" and "wrong" be based?

Now we are straying out of ethics and into general philosophy. I'm sorry if these questions are keeping you up at night, but I have no problem whatsoever with the notion that I have a moral obligation based simply on the fact that I am a sentient being that knows right from wrong, therefore I should behave appropriately or I am denying my own essece.

Neither a rock floating through space nor a venemous jelly-fish know right from wrong so cannot be judged for either wiping out the dinosaurs or fatally stinging a surfer.

I do, therefore I am, and should.

Also, if the device is "clearly very simple" as you suggest, then it should be an easy task for you to make one. I invite you to post pics and videos of your very simple creation.

Haha, nice. If I still had my shed and all my tools actually I could reproduce that device. It would take many many hours of painstaking work, and I would never even consider doing it, but it is quite possible.

But as we are just talking about the complexity of the device, I (or you) could quite easily cut out scaled replicas of all the components out of construction paper without very much effort and thus demonstrate its relative simplicity.

None of us, with or without a shed, tools or construction paper is going to create an accurate representation of the complexity of a multi-core processor.... nice try


             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


The real dilemma for me here is that I don't actually want to argue against your religion. I like you, bible and all. I am not the mean kid in the schoolyard that wants to take your bible and throw it on the roof, but please excuse me if I just read my science book ok?

                                                             

[CumSavorer4385]

Why argue with her, she's retarded and a liar

[LiveFreeorDie]

Hehe... also the bible says that PI = 3 ..... Yeah like I'm pretty damn sure GOD knows how to draw a circle, but I'm guessing that the men who were writing all this stuff down then rewriting it etc. probably didnt have the math skills to write down 3.14159265358979323846 so they just kinda rounded it down ya?.... the word of GOD.... they just kinda.... sorta... rounded it down a bit - ya? 

@Lambchops Hey, really enjoyed our talk last night. I appreciate your willingness to share your views and talk about them, which is a trait that the vast majority of people who believe in evolution are unwilling or unable to do. So I appreciate that.

I only have a bit of time, so I'll address this point and come back to the others later.

The assumption, which is a false assumption, from which you have concluded this, is that the shape of the object in question is a cylinder. The object in question is not a cylinder.

The Molten Sea described in 1 Kings 7 is NOT a cylinder!

1 Kings 7:23-26

23 And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.

24 Below its brim were ornamental buds encircling it all around, ten to a cubit, all the way around the Sea. The ornamental buds were cast in two rows when it was cast. 25 It stood on twelve oxen: three looking toward the north, three looking toward the west, three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; the Sea was set upon them, and all their back parts pointed inward. 26 It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was shaped like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It contained two thousand baths.



The diameter from brim to brim is obviously NOT the same circle as the circle forming the circumference of the vessel. The circle from brim to brim is a larger circle than the circle forming the vessel body.

There is no mathematical problem here.

The concept that modern man is smart and ancient man was dumb is completely faulty.

And I will accept the Antikythera Mechanism made of any material you wish, so long as it works. Construction paper is fine, cardboard, Play Dough, whatever you want to use is fine.

I can't wait to see it!

[LiveFreeorDie]

Quote from: BabyShark on January 11, 2018, 05:18:29 PM

    There is no known scientific mechanism that allows for the creation of new information required for new features, like wings or lungs or bones or kidneys or a mouth or feathers.


I believe it's called "evolution". It's a very well known, well studied and well documented process.

You are saying "if I have a name for it, that proves it".

I have a name for my beliefs about origin. It's called Creation. It's a very well known, well studied and well documented process.

That proves it.

You're going to have to do better than that.

The reality is that there is NO mechanism that allows for the ADDITION of NEW information for new functional structures in living things. The addition of NEW information has NEVER been observed. There are exactly ZERO instances of this being observed EVER. ZERO. NONE.

All mutations can do is scramble or delete existing information. They can NEVER add NEW information. It's not found in science.

This one fact alone is enough to dump the entire "theory" down the drain of implausible ideas.

This is one area where belief is required, and why I call evolutionism a religion, which as you will come to realize upon closer examination, it is. And its proponents defend it with religious fervor, and vehemently attack and oppose anyone who dares point out scientific problems with their philosophy. You have to believe that the genetic code can magically produce new information to produce new structures and information that wasn't there before. In actual science, where people can test, observe, demonstrate, witness, this does not exist. It's a fantasy.

This is an insurmountable problem for the evolutionist view.

In terms of meaningful information arising out of nothingness and intelligently designed functioning organisms, machines, life systems that all are intricate and complex and marvellous coming into existence on their own, you proposed the following:

"A monkey at a typewriter would type out all of Shakespeare's works given enough time." (You specified infinite time.)

1. You can believe that, but it's outside of science. It is impossible to test or prove this scientifically, because you can't test with infinite time. This is a belief, an opinion, not science.

2. This is one of many types of impossible things or "miracles" that evolutionists have faith in, and the medicine to cure impossibility is always enormous, inconceivable amounts of *time*. A frog can become a prince, just mix in 3 teaspoons of time. These are fairy tales, not science.

3. A monkey (intelligently designed organism) trained by a human (intelligently designed intelligent organism) who sat the monkey at a typewriter (an intelligently designed machine) could possibly, with significant effort from the human coaxing with rewards and assistance, produce a small number of disjointed words, such as "as", "I", "jar", "hat" mixed up in a massive pile of jibberish.

Ie. jfwio ejifj io mwe iqio mj[CEFMKIVK AWREV K'WFOM Q'WOMOIMJMDOIA' sdj;iowe;miweimomvawej;awjef9qjfovkvdmkladmfvvflfgbkkjkjkmlfklmfdkgfgeakorwweo'rwejoi'wfji'ofwjeifw'pfw'pfw'jfJ'GFVEMK'LAEGVMAGE EGM'BAM' VWM'VEFM'OIVAEM'I e'avnvRM'rm'er

Ok, I mashed the keyboard (I turned off caps lock partway through lol just because *shrug*). Here we see if, we, do, we, lad, or, we, we, of, if, MAGE, AM.

Wow, randomly produced words! Perhaps the word MAGE because it's a W2 fan!?!?

First of all there is no coherent information here.

Does this scenario accurately represent the situation when absolutely nothing existed?

We have a human being (a remarkably intelligent specimen of the most intelligent species on earth at that ) at a computer (intelligently designed by even more intelligent specimens) pressing buttons that represent letters that make up language. This isn't an equivalent scenario to absolute nothingness. When you have NOTHING, you have no computer. You have no letters. You have no one pressing the buttons.

How long it will take nothingness to nothing the nothing into something can't even be addressed by science because we can't reproduce nothingness.

Even scientists desperately trying to make life in a lab aren't reproducing the conditions under which life arose without intelligent design, because by their concentrated efforts, they are injecting intelligent design into the process, but still failing miserably at producing life from non-living material.

Even if they put a living frog in a blender, so that they now have all of the atomic components and chemicals needed to make life, they are going to have a very poor outcome in trying to reassemble that frog into a living animal.

[LiveFreeorDie]

As I understand it the bible tells you not to covert another man's wife (with the implication that she is his property), but it doesn't say you shouldn't rape your own wife ya? ... or famale slaves, or children?? (altar boys spring to mind!).... now I'm certainly not saying that GOD didn't forbid these things when he was spelling out our morals for us, but perhaps some MEN edited those bits out?

Men are not expected to love property. Men are commanded by God to love their wives.

Ephesians 5:25-33

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

That sure doesn't sound like property to me. Love, nourish, cherish, one flesh. You don't become one flesh with an object. You don't love an object.

And what is love, according to God?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8b

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails.

What's rape? (Google search result)

Rape: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent

Does rape sound like it coincides with God's definition and command to love other people? I don't think so.

You mentioned altar boys. I'm Christian, not Catholic.

Catholics forbid priests from marrying women. The Bible forbids forbidding men to marry and calls such teaching the doctrine of demons.

1 Timothy 4:1-3

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry

Catholics also idolize a human (pope) above God, teach that you can pay money to have your sins forgiven, and pray to humans like Mary (idolatry). The Catholic church wandered away from the truth of the Bible and has been taken over by demonic doctrine and has led many astray from the truth. The presence of abuse and sin within Catholicism lines up with the Bible's teaching of the depravity of man and his need for a Savior.

[LiveFreeorDie]

Quote from: BabyShark on January 11, 2018, 05:18:29 PM

    Stellar evolution: the origin of stars
    Chemical evolution: the origin of the elements
    Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, matter from a "big bang" of nothing exploding into the universe
    Organic evolution: the origin of life from non-life
    Macro-evolution: the changing of.....
                                                    ......ONLY micro-evolution is scientific

Ok if you really want to know then pay attention to this bit: None of those things are scientific. I'm pretty sure you've sourced them from some religious propoganda material or other, but I do know they didn't come from science or the correct definition of the word "evolution". This is just someone trying to construct a house of cards on top of a bed of split-hairs in order to deny the blatently obvious.

You're getting into a tizzy over terminology. I'm trying to be careful to define terms to avoid confusion.

You keep calling things propaganda but have yet to demonstrate any truth to this term. Propaganda implies dishonesty or deception or an inaccurate implication to persuade people into a certain way of thinking apart from facts and logic and truth.

It doesn't matter WHAT you call it. Stars exist. Chemicals exist. Life exists. The universe exists. Time, space, and matter exist. Animals exist. If you want to call the origin of stars Starorigination or SuperStarFormationTheory or Stellar evolution, call it whatever you want, but stars do exist, and unless you're asserting that all of these things existed infinitely forever backwards in time, which you're welcome to believe but is outside of science because you can't test or repeat or observe it, they had a beginning.

Did they have a beginning other than what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1:16?

 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

No one has ever seen a star form. We have apparently seen stars "die", but no one has ever seen a star form. This poses a problem for evolutionists, because with more stars than humans can count (hundred billion trillion), they should be coming into existence regularly in order to have this many when we have only seen them die.

God knows exactly how many stars there are, and get this, He knows every star by name.

Psalm 147:4

He counts the number of the stars;
He calls them all by name.

Take a quick peek at the comparison of sizes starting with the moon all the way to the largest star we know about VY Canis Majoris. The universe is...HUGE.

We need to look at the universe we live in and recognize how very, very tiny we are before its Almighty maker! Arrogance melts away when we fall on our faces before the living God who created the heavens and the earth!

This is a really neat video that starts with the smallest particles and goes out and out and out to the observable universe, with the realization that there is unknown-to-man at both ends.

The Smallest to the Biggest thing in the Universe! (HD) how Big is the Universe - YouTube

It is spectacularly beautiful! I'm just blown away by the works of God!

[LiveFreeorDie]

You'll like this. hehe. men are a virus. way back when life was very simple a chunk of dna came about that worked by sticking its dna into something else and letting that thing replicate it, instead of replicating by itself. This was a massive boon for life because it enabled the transfer of genetic traits and encouraged diversity which led to much faster and more efficiant evolution. The sperm, the womb and all the related naughty bits evolved later once this system was already in place.

This is why, despite the fact that asexual reproduction was around first, the forms of life that have evolved from the sexually reproductive branch (plants/animals/us!) have evolved much further in a shorter amount of time than the asexual forms of life like bacteria, which remain very simple.

"Way back when life was simple." Life isn't simple. Even the simplest living cell is more complex than a space shuttle, and needs all the parts to work properly together in order for the cell to be alive.

I understand that evolutionists make up just-so stories and long imaginary tales to explain their ideas, but again, it's not science. It's conjecture. Wishful thinking.

Show me scientific evidence of the claims, not fictional productions of fantasy.

No human besides Adam has seen a time before men and women existed. There is no evidence that sexual reproduction came about by gradual, chance processes.

"A simple chunk of DNA" DNA isn't simple. DNA also can't do anything by itself. It can't go hunt down victims to attack or squirt into. It's in instruction manual, a code, that needs a processor and a power source to make use of the information. Outside of a living cell, it isn't going to be doing much of anything.

The human reproductive system is so complex and perfectly designed that obviously you can't have the womb coming along "later", because if the mother didn't have a womb, there isn't going to be a baby who can start trying to develop one randomly by chance mutations.

Even with all the knowledge humans have obtained over 6000 years of trying to understand the reproductive system, and in spite of how much we've learned, we still are left with a lot of awe-inspiring mystery.

Two cells becoming one cell. Mystery.

That one cell becoming 26 billion in time for birth. Mystery.

The beginning of labor. Mystery.

To try to gain an appreciation for what we take for granted, think about how hard it would be for you, with all your intelligence, to MAKE that.

Imagine trying to design a single cell that turns into a human being. Imagine having access to unlimited personnel, science experts, funding, machinery, medical equipment.

You wouldn't be able to do it in your lifetime.

The above explanation of how male and female originated is so simplistic and undetailed and entirely lacking scientific evidence. The idea that there was some reproduction happening without a womb would, if it were true, make the womb unnecessary. If it is sexual reproduction, I can guarantee you that the womb is absolutely essential. A person can't have a baby without a womb, and if you could, you wouldn't need to get one. The same is true for every other part. If you can reproduce without a penis, you wouldn't need to get one. And the penis is such a glorious marvel and source of pleasure that its existence is 100% not an accident.

[Lambchops]

Ok, just briefly:

on the molten sea:

The words in the bible, which you say are infallible, are describing a molten sea and giving its dimensions. People can draw as many pretty pictures of excuses as they like. Which page of the bible is that illustration on?

If the bible is describing the diameter of one part of this vessel which contains the 'sea' then describing the circumferance of another part of it and attributing them both to the same thing, then that is an error intself.

Why would GOD in his perfect wisdom choose to provide these irrellivant dimensions in his all too brief accout to his beloved creations. Maybe GOD suggested to some MAN that "hey you should tell them about the molten sea, that's pretty cool" ... and then some man did his best to describe it, and just kinda roughed out the dimensions eh? Seems a bit more likely than the holy spirit commanding someone to accurately measure completely different parts of an odd shaped vessel then attribute the measurements to the contents of the vessel. Doesn't sound like the kind of mistake GOD would make, more like that of a man.

on wives and commandments.

Thats all nice and you can interpret it with nice unicorns and rainbows or as "her body is my body" i.e. "she is my property" and should respect me. That is about the interpretation, not the words.

Just please direct me to the passage in the bible that mentions consent, I mean if the holy spirit in its perfect wisdom thought we needed paragraphs incorrectly describing some old pot, surely there's a word or two in there on consent? As we are describing the perfect morals for all of humanity, I'm pretty sure that will be in there somewhere (hopefully carved into a stone tablet )

on multiple prefixes for the word "evolution".

Ok. Firstly, I'm not in a tizzy. I wouldn't tizzy at you
There was no confusion. The introduction of all these "diferent types of evolution" is just a word game that attempts to obfuscate the issue (hence propoganda). The fact that it comes from a religious source is evident because every one of them is described as being "the origin" of something. This is obviously written from a religious viewpoint as that is what gets creationists in a tizzy (lol) the origin of life.

As I said immediately prior to the quoted section "There is only one meaning for the word evolution, and that is not it. Evolution describes a change that happens over time, it does not describe the origin of any basic object, only how a system changes."

Even Darwin (who was neither prophert nor messiah, just a man with the start of an idea) entitled his book "on the origin of species" NOT "on the origin of life". It attempts to describe how life evolves over time, thereby how new species come about, it has nothing to do with how life was created in the first place.

on "proof"

There is an absolute mountain of evidence that proves evolution. Fossil records dating back millions of years. Just because you dont live long enough to see it happen in front of you does not mean it doesn't happen. I believe last time I had this discussion I ended up saying: I don't have to actually throw myself into the sun to prove I will be burnt, just knowing it's hot, and that hot things will burn me is sufficiant.

So how are you going at proving the existance of GOD? .... not like oh the world is so wonderful therefore GOD must have made it, I mean like maybe a fossilised GOD footprint or something?

      .... and BTW which page of the bible describes the computer you're using to post these messages?

on hey you missed a bit

The bible was written by men right? I mean even if they are writing down what they remembered hearing Jesus say or whatever else was going on at the time, they were all just men ya? There is no gospel of Jesus, let alone a gospel of GOD. So then after these men wrote it down the way they remembered it, then other men transcribed what they had written multiple times, and into multiple languages. Then a bunch of men sat down and decided which of these stories they thought were best and which ones they didn't like, then they put those stories into a book and called it "The Bible" and declared it to be the word of GOD. Men did that right?