Christian answering questions.

[Pat Mustard]

You are an idiot.

 You call me an idiot with this kind of an answer to the post, seems to me the shoe needs to be on the other foot.

GC

It is an objectively correct statement based on the evidence provided by you in this and other threads (like for example your extremely uninformed notion that prayer has an effect). Anomalocaris is correct, and you, as always, are wrong, wrong, wrong.

[drfuzzy]

 You call me an idiot with this kind of an answer to the post, seems to me the shoe needs to be on the other foot.

GC

There is no answer to your post, since it was neither question nor theory, just a pretty stupid statement which shows your fundamental ignorance of what science is all about.

The only thing mildly interesting would be the "people who lead us" part. Since it's obviously not the pope, but your particular choice of people. And everyone claiming to be christian chooses their own brand of people to lead them. So there's no real "us". Just a bunch of warring belief sets with their pastors, priests or whatever they call themselves.

As a slight derail to a thread that has already gone off the tracks anyway . . .      

Although GC is not a Catholic, I was reminded about the histories of the Popes.  The hundreds (or is it thousands?) of Christian denominations aside, one would think that a Christian Church that essentially ruled over Europe and other territories for for well over a thousand years would have some proof of the existence of God.  You would think that if God spoke to any human, it would certainly be to the guy that millions of people believe speaks for God - the supposedly infallible Pope.  And yet, a simple scan of Papal history shows some of the most evil, greedy, violent, sociopaths imaginable.  Orgies and rape in the Vatican.  The selling of indulgences, "relics", sex taxes, a war on witches and heretics and infidels - a lot of these guys were horrifyingly evil.  And God never stopped a single one of them.  I wonder why.     Could it be because God never existed in the first place?

[Jackie]

Not if that book is the only one making that claim, and is vague (to put it mildly) about its methods of finding that information, no.

But, as usual, you maintain a zero grasp on how science works, and why what's in a science book is vetted in a way that the Bible could never hope to achieve.

You're also completely missing the point-- when you ask us for a scriptural reason your faith is incorrect (allowing you to play whack-a-mole with the concept of interpretation), it's like asking me to use The Lord of the Rings to disprove Middle Earth's mythology.

 I have to much respect for God and His word to play around with interpretations. All science books saying the same thing is no different than having one book. The Bible has been vetted, of coarse not by sources you would accept, I trust God's infallibility and the people He's chosen to lead us.

GC

No, first off "respect" is a hollow cliche. It means, "Know your place" and "Don't bruise my ego"...... I never use that word.

You value the IDEA of having a super hero, but so do other people with different god claims. I get you like that idea, many of us used to like the idea of having a cosmic security guard too. You don't value facts, you value unverifiable claims. Claims you bought before you had any clue what good logic skills were.

"I have too much respect for Allah and His word to play around with interpretations"
"I have too much respect for Yahweh and His word to play around with interpretations"
"I have too much respect for the Hindu god Bhrama to play around with his interpretations"
"I have too much respect for Buddha to play around with his interpretations"

Get in line, take a number.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]The Bible has been vetted, of coarse not by sources you would accept, I trust God's infallibility and the people He's chosen to lead us.

Yes, yes, we know, that you trust people, who make unsubstantiated claims regarding the universe, demand money and political power, on the basis of those claims and shelter child-rapists. That's because you sold your reason and your dignity for some magic beans. Well done...

[Godscreated]

[...]The Bible has been vetted, of coarse not by sources you would accept, I trust God's infallibility and the people He's chosen to lead us.

Yes, yes, we know, that you trust people, who make unsubstantiated claims regarding the universe, demand money and political power, on the basis of those claims and shelter child-rapists. That's because you sold your reason and your dignity for some magic beans. Well done...  

 Sonny I'm not a Catholic and if I were I would condemn those priest as I do now, it's my moral position. You have no proof how the universe started and Christians have as much right to be in the political arena as atheist do. My dignity belongs to God to judge not you.

GC

[Godscreated]

 I have to much respect for God and His word to play around with interpretations. All science books saying the same thing is no different than having one book. The Bible has been vetted, of coarse not by sources you would accept, I trust God's infallibility and the people He's chosen to lead us.

GC

No, first off "respect" is a hollow cliche. It means, "Know your place" and "Don't bruise my ego"...... I never use that word.

Because you were never taught what respect is, just because you don't have any doesn't mean I don't, by the way respect means to honor.

GC

[rexbeccarox]

 So that means you can't use scientific books to prove things of science in that book.

GC

You can check on things in science books for yourself given the right equipment.
Why do you not know this?
Are you from the past?

East Tennessee; same thing.

[Godscreated]

 You call me an idiot with this kind of an answer to the post, seems to me the shoe needs to be on the other foot.

GC

It is an objectively correct statement based on the evidence provided by you in this and other threads (like for example your extremely uninformed notion that prayer has an effect). Anomalocaris is correct, and you, as always, are wrong, wrong, wrong.

 Now that you brought this up in another thread I'll answer it, you uncaring moron. No one can know how God will answer prayer so any study is just an assumption at best and yes I have seen prayer work and guess what your assumptions don't change a thing.

GC

[drfuzzy]

It is an objectively correct statement based on the evidence provided by you in this and other threads (like for example your extremely uninformed notion that prayer has an effect). Anomalocaris is correct, and you, as always, are wrong, wrong, wrong.

 Now that you brought this up in another thread I'll answer it, you uncaring moron. No one can know how God will answer prayer so any study is just an assumption at best and yes I have seen prayer work and guess what your assumptions don't change a thing.

GC

Prayer has been tested, and tested, over and over.  It has shown no measurable results - other than the same blood-pressure lowering effect that all forms of meditation show.  People attribute normal occurrences to prayer because they refuse to believe that they're just thinking at the ceiling - there is nobody listening.

[downbeatplumb]

It is an objectively correct statement based on the evidence provided by you in this and other threads (like for example your extremely uninformed notion that prayer has an effect). Anomalocaris is correct, and you, as always, are wrong, wrong, wrong.

 Now that you brought this up in another thread I'll answer it, you uncaring moron. No one can know how God will answer prayer so any study is just an assumption at best and yes I have seen prayer work and guess what your assumptions don't change a thing.

GC

Can you say confirmation bias? I bet you can.