Let's talk about... yaweh

[Drich]

So... Allllllll this talk about science and you can't produce one instance, one scrap of 'evidence' to support this big wordy claim.. Hmmm, I guess to you when someone make an ad Hom assertion and backs it with nothing, you just blindly follow.. Or rather that is what your expecting those who read your post to do.

Bear in mind this is in direct contrast to my observation which cited actual science and a whole industrial practice (of Growing plants with out sun light) to refute the old atheist pillar argument that is supposed to pit God against 'grade school science/common sense.' which dry sand used in the OP.

Can you wrap your mind around why/how my statement; "The bible has a better understanding of 'science' than most of you do?" is supported by the evidence that I left concerning grow lights and subsequent plant growth. Is Indeed validated through 'science.' where as your personal attacks (ironically enough/because you are supposed to be on the side of science,) do not quote or reference any evidence to support your claims Of my "idiocy." rather you speak to stereotypes and atheistic prejudiced against christianity to rally support.


"Oooga-booga all christian, stoo-ped. they not know science. oooga-booga we decendant from common ape ancestor, we is science. Oooo Oooo they can not know science like we know science, Dey all sheep."

Without evidence sport all your eloquence, spit and shine amounts to little more than monkey man rantings.

You want to 'take science away from me' then use it. Definitively Show me how I am wrong.

Or do you have another monkey man rant for me?

Wait, supported by the scientific evidence you provided? Really?!? Normally, I'd ask if you were joking, but I know you are about as earnest and as humorless as they come.

The evidence? That hydroponics are a thing and therefore grow lights (you know, those manufactured objects that plug into man-made electrical circuits in order to work) are an apt analogy to the light that allegedly existed to allow plants to survive before there were stars -- a "scientific" claim (read: mere assertion) you make because your ancient holy book says so . . . that evidence? Yeah, I'm stunned at the insight. Someone, call a meeting of the leading cosmologists, STAT!

Look, Sport, if it makes you feel better to dismiss my "monkey man rant" as atheist stereotyping and prejudice, have at it. I couldn't care less. Your transparently desperate, club-footed efforts to shoehorn science into your Biblical worldview are on display for anyone to see and to draw their own conclusions. Like I said, school children . . .

I'm not here to spoon feed you the remedial education you wouldn't need if you weren't so blinded by devotion to your "special book". You're bright enough on your own to read up on early- and later-generation stars, the estimated age of our sun (compared to the estimated age of the universe), and the current thinking on the formation of the solar system and then compare that with the order of events in your holy book to draw the correct conclusion about whether the Earth was here (with plants, no less) before there were stars. That you feel a need to vindicate the writings of people who, through no fault of their own, were ignorant of such matters and who therefore indulged in myth to explain it all is really not my problem, Drich. Have fun squaring that circle. Knock yourself out!

Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

Nice try... but no.

It's real simple.. deceptively simple. (that is why so many of you object, because you haven't quite figured out how iron clad this is.)

The OP uses an old atheist argument that plant life can not exist without the sun. the assumption being the sun is the only source of light possible. However if one remains with in the confines of the narrative (which is what one does in the old atheist argument the OP uses) Light and darkness is created on the first day, which points to a light source other than the sun.

Now that said the conclusion of the old 'atheist argument' God/the bible is not scientific accurate itself is what is in error. Not the bible. Which again points to the lack of a 'scientific' basis in which that particular argument attacks scripture.