Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[Shell B]

The funny thing is, he outsmarts them too.

[thesummerqueen]

Haha, even if you were to take that on faith, it would fall apart. Humans were supposedly here before Satan fell from heaven, right? Well, how the fuck did he move all that shit around without anyone noticing? He's not exactly Voldemort.

[Shell B]

I was talking about Satan, but that is fucking hilarious! Mucho kudos. I'm stealing it.

[Zen Badger]

After sin came into the world, corruption came with it. Though, even after the curse people still lived for a thousand years. It's only in this post flood environment that we have reduced life spans and healing capabilities, due to the reduction of oxygen in the atmosphere and the increased exposure to UV radiation.

Evidence for your flood is......? Where?

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/..._flood.htm
There are many sites with evidence. We find layers of sediment in places they shouldn't be. Many well-established groups of animals such as dinosaurs and trilobites suddenly disappear from the fossil record. Creationist scientists theorize a collapse of a vapor canopy would have caused this, as it never rained before the Flood. A humid, higher-pressure environment would have been perfect for reptiles and humans to live long lives. I also point to the many petrified forests, polystratic trees, and ephemeral markings such as ripple marks and rain imprints as well as marine fossils atop mountains.

Where the fuck do you get this shit from????

Seriously!!!

Rarely have I seen so much utter crap in one paragraph.

as it never rained before the Flood

How did your creationist "scientists"( an oxymoron) work that little gem out?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Yes it is based on faith just like its based on faith to believe there is no god

Indeed it is,such a claim also attracts the burden of proof .However, I have made no claims. I assert only"I do not believe due to lack of credible evidence,".That is not a faith based position.

You cannot prove a negative and I'm not going to be suckered into doing so. I'm not trying to prove his sinless nature

The burden of proof means that the person who makes a claim has the obligation to provide credible evidence in support of that claim.It's basic to the scientific method.

You are not being suckered into anything.You put yourself in that position by making an unprovable claim.

It is you who made the positive claim that Jesus was perfect (without sin) in all his actions. If a claim cannot proved,it may be dismissed.


I really don't care about your personal superstitions. If you come to a forum full of atheists and skeptics and make truth claims of any kind,be prepared have proof demanded. If you are unable to provide proof,be prepared to dismissed as just another apologist with nothing of interest to say

Bored now.


000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The entire article is worth reading.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief thing which separates a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect[4] (see Falsifiability. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...f_evidence

[thesummerqueen]

I was talking about Satan, but that is fucking hilarious! Mucho kudos. I'm stealing it.

My brain isn't exactly working tonight.

[Shell B]

I was talking about Satan, but that is fucking hilarious! Mucho kudos. I'm stealing it.

My brain isn't exactly working tonight.

It's perfectly fun. It was still hilarious! I hope you feel better.

By the way, I missed that "never rained before the flood bit." That's awesome. It has been raining ever since it could, which was around the time the Earth became less like Mordor, if I am not mistaken. This is just ludicrous.

[Minimalist]

This is just ludicrous.

If there is one thing I have learned from this board it is that there is nothing so ludicrous that some religious asshole won't utter it and swear it is true.

[Zen Badger]

By the way, I missed that "never rained before the flood bit." That's awesome. It has been raining ever since it could, which was around the time the Earth became less like Mordor, if I am not mistaken. This is just ludicrous.

I have a recollection that this "theory"(the vapour shell etc) was originally proposed by Kent Hovind, a man so stupid that even other cretinists avoid him.

[chi pan]

Yes it is based on faith just like its based on faith to believe there is no god

Indeed it is,such a claim also attracts the burden of proof .However, I have made no claims. I assert only"I do not believe due to lack of credible evidence,".That is not a faith based position.

You cannot prove a negative and I'm not going to be suckered into doing so. I'm not trying to prove his sinless nature

The burden of proof means that the person who makes a claim has the obligation to provide credible evidence in support of that claim.It's basic to the scientific method.

You are not being suckered into anything.You put yourself in that position by making an unprovable claim.

It is you who made the positive claim that Jesus was perfect (without sin) in all his actions. If a claim cannot proved,it may be dismissed.


I really don't care about your personal superstitions. If you come to a forum full of atheists and skeptics and make truth claims of any kind,be prepared have proof demanded. If you are unable to provide proof,be prepared to dismissed as just another apologist with nothing of interest to say

Bored now.


000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The entire article is worth reading.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief thing which separates a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect[4] (see Falsifiability. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...f_evidence

The question I answered was not scientific it was philosophical. You said him being perfect was a contradiction and I proved this wrong. The conversation did not start with the burden of proof that he was perfect it started YOU saying its not possible because it contradicts the very definition. That's it. I answered the question and that's all I'm obligated to do.