Wads4

So now all you need to do is show how your alleged scientific hypothesis of an omnipotent God can be observed and measured and how it is falsfiiable, and how it makes testable predictions which are not just mere assertions. Until you do this, forgive us for choosing not to accept this unconfirmed hypothesis.

Mike Elphick

I know . However, one can at least show that the speed of light has not changed. Are you listening ISVfan?

buckshot23

I am not going to get into biblical interpretation here with you.:banghead:

Sven

Yeah, good idea, since you've lost or abandonded every single exchange with Oolon you had so far.

TomboyMom

I see from your profile that you are young and a new user. That's O.K., we were all both of those things once. However, to avoid embarassing yourself, I advise you to spend some time taking a look around here before posting. That's because if you review this forum, you will see that every one of your assertions has been raised many times and refuted soundly. We've heard it and whipped it all before. So when you run this stuff up the flagpole it gets shot down before it reaches the top. It doesn't advance your cause; it only provides us with comic relief.

First, let's limit ourselves to the main issue you raise, which is the scientific basis for evolution. Otherwise we'll be all over the place and all over the fora.
You have made certain assertions. They are all false, fallacious, and just plain wrong. Other posters will refute/are refuting/have refuted them in this thread. For example, the "second law of thermodynamcs argument"--I hope you see now that you were mistaken there. If I'm not mistaken, even AIG has suggested that creationists stop using this argument.

Can we make a deal? Your position is that you believe that the theory of evolution is false because of these things you asserted. If we prove to you that each and every one of them is wrong, will you withdraw/change your position? Otherwise it's what I call "Heads I win/Tails you lose" argumentation, and a waste of time. It's also intellectually dishonest. So, deal?

Also, many posters have suggested that you educate yourself a little about the subject before making a total idiot of yourself. Your post demonstrates that you have not done this. It doesn't mean you have to believe it; just learn about it. By example, I don't believe the bible at all, but I know a lot about what it says. So, when I argue with Christians, I can show them that I know what I'm talking about. By the same token, I strongly advise you to learn what evolution is and says, what science is, what the actual evidence in favor of evolution is, and so forth. talk origins is great, or, here's a thought--you could read a book!

Mountain Man

Ah, but god just made it look that way to fool you. See? You can't win, they just have their god lie to you. It's just strange that a god would need to lie like that.

Oolon Colluphid

But I am not asking how one ought to interpret it. I'm just asking you why, if you do not feel constrained to read the Bible literally...
... there's any reason to assume Genesis is exempt.

And if Genesis is

1. Not
2. Literal

... why do you feel evolution is incorrect? It does not conflict with your non-literal faith, so what's the problem?

Angrillori

Well, I think that's got a similar gradient to flat-earthism and creationism. We would just have guys like Former Bishop Spong on the side of the miracles being metaphoric, and most christians on the side of their literalism. (Though the number of miracle-metaphor-ists is definitely growing!)

See:

All literal........................................... ...........................All Metaphoric
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|--Flat Earthers--|
...............|--This thread starter--|
.............................|-----Buckshot-----|
.................................................. ...........|---Spong---|
.................................................. ...................................|Angrillori|

This is the same chart that would show to what extent people think things qualify as "sooooooo batshit insane you can't believe it's true."

Flat earthers hold the flat earth verses to not pass that threshold.
Buckshot thinks those DO cross that threshold, but the evolution and miracle stuff doesn't.
Spong thinks all the miraculous stories cross that threshold, but things like the existence of jesus and the historical stories may not.
Me? I think the whole book surpasses the batshit insane threshold.

To bing it back to EvC, I wonder how well this chart stacks up to a chart of biology education? I would think the more you know about what's been demonstrated and what the science supports, the lower your threshold for "X is soooooo batshit insane" would be.

judanne

OK, thread is now reopened. With the exception of the previous post (had some E/C content so I left it) arguments regarding biblical interpretation have been moved to BC&H for anyone who wishes to pursue them there. Please try to address the OP topic...not that it doesn't wobble all over the place itself. Let's just attempt to keep the subject matter within the E/C domain and avoid further discussion about scriptural interpretation.

Thanks for your patience

judanne, E/C moderator

show_no_mercy

2 Chronicles 4:2

"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."

10 cubits rim to rim means that the radius is 5. 30 cubits is the circumference of a circle

2*pi*r = circumference of a circle. In this case, 2*pi*5 = 30, or 10*pi = 30. This means that pi = 3.

If pi were it's REAL number, 3.14, then the circumfrence would be 31.4 cubits.

Looks like you're wrong... unless pi really IS 3 and we've all been fooled by the devil.