Kirk Cameron : Ray Comfort says the Bible is science and evolution theory isn't

Ray Comfort says the Bible is science and evolution theory isn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFL-vASfp24

Are there any creationists here who agree Ray?
Tell me why you agree with him?

Evolution was born out of a desire to come up with a theory that those who didn't want to believe in the Bible could accept. There is nothing scientific about contriving a theory and pushing for it to become an accepted kind of science so people can blow off facts that are already available to learn. Then came the work to legitimize it, including having respected biologists and such to throw their names behind it. I will admit that there are a few legitimate scientific findings that make evolution seem possible, but it's either just coincidence, or it could have been made available by God himself, to test people and/or give them a free choice whether or not to believe in him.

Think about it what other kind of science is there that takes focus off God- And what better way to turn people off from the God of the Bible by trying to make people believe that he's not so great and probably doesn't even exist than by attacking Creationism? That is what was on the minds of the developers of the theory of evolution. They hated the Bible and the very concept of God. Now look how the beliefs of many people have been captured by the hatred of the developers. Millions, maybe billions! I chose to believe in what was not developed out of hatred.

---

Evolution was bo1354rn out of a desire to come up with a theory that those who didn't want to believe in the Bible

---

The discovery of the layering is very old. Leonardo DaVinci has documented about it and the different layers that compose it.
The discoveries of the 1700s/1800s were done by christians.

---

so people can blow off facts that are already available to learn.

---

Such as?

---

I will admit that there are a few legitimate scientific findings that make evolution seem possible

---

Such as?

---

including having respected biologists and such to throw their names behind it

---

So you are saying that these biologist show unprofessional conduct and the peer review process that is intended to filter out bad science has failed.

---

Think about it what other kind of science is there that takes focus off God

---

The biggest problem for is that there are thousands of cultures each with their religion. Why would I pick the jewish one. Why would I pick the christian one which is a blend of jewish/roman/greek/egyptian/mythraism?

Other aspects of science compete with the gods as well. For example, it was once believed that the gods do floods (meteorology replaced the gods).
Gods do lightining (meteorology replaced the gods).
Gods make planets go around (basic physics replaced the gods).
Gods make sickness (germ theory replaced the gods).

The pattern has always been logic, reason, the mechanics of nature replacing the magic of the gods. The opposite never happens.

---

The discovery of the layering is very old. Leonardo DaVinci has documented about it and the different layers that compose it.
The discoveries of the 1700s/1800s were done by christians.

---

I don't know what your point is. The writing of the Creation story and the Great Flood story predates all that. I don't know at what point people started to give much thought to rock layering or the concept of science, but it was after the Great Flood, which caused much of that layering.

---

so people can blow off facts that are already available to learn.



Such as?

---

The facts in the Bible, and facts that can be ascertained just by looking around at and in the earth.

---

I will admit that there are a few legitimate scientific findings that make evolution seem possible


Such as?

---

Come on. You don't need me to tell you that.

---

including having respected biologists and 5b4such to throw their names behind it



So you are saying that these biologist show unprofessional conduct and the peer review process that is intended to filter out bad science has failed.

---

Yep. The scientists who aren't swayed against Christianity, which causes them to support evolution out of hate are doing it because they fear for their reputations and their standing among other scientists.

---

The biggest problem for is that there are thousands of cultures each with their religion. Why would I pick the jewish one. Why would I pick the christian one which is a blend of jewish/roman/greek/egyptian/mythraism?

---

You pick whichever you want and call all the others a blend of whatever you want to say they are. People who say "Christian beliefs is a blend of such and such" usually were misguided to see it that way. The Bible itself says repeatedly that all scripture is God-breathed and God-inspired. He himself is the actual author, but he used particular humans to document it for all mankind.

---

Other aspects of science compete with the gods as well. For example, it was once believed that the gods do floods (meteorology replaced the gods).
Gods do lightining (meteorology replaced the gods).
Gods make planets go around (basic physics replaced the gods).
Gods make sickness (germ theory re2000placed the gods).

The pattern has always been logic, reason, the mechanics of nature replacing the magic of the gods. The opposite never happens.

---

I was only talking about the God of Christianity.

---

I don't know what your point is. The writing of the Creation story and the Great Flood story predates all that. I don't know at what point people started to give much thought to rock layering or the concept of science, but it was after the Great Flood, which caused much of that layering.

---

Im not sure how a flood can cause different types of materials to layer over hundreds of meters all over the planet. There is no explanation about the fossil record that creationists can provide. Why arent there human remains, dog remains, or any of todays animals in the oldest layers? The fossil record suggest there have been at least 3 minor extinction events and 2 major extinction events. Something about 95% of past species are extinct. There is also the global iridium layer that has been formed by a huge asteroid impact during the time of the dinosaurs.

---

The facts in the Bible, and facts that can be ascertained just by looking around at and in the earth.

---

Are you going to tell me what these facts are that suggest that all animals were created at the same time. What dating techniques do creationists use?

---

Come on. You don't need me to tell you that.

---

Yes, you do.
Which findings make evolution theory legitimate to you?

---

Yep. The scientists who aren't swayed against Christianity, which causes them to support evolution out of hate are doing it because they fear for their reputations and their standing among other scientists.

---

Well ok. I would say that scientists are like me. In fact, I would like to work as a chemist and make discoveries. Scientists are curious people and they check each others work (peer review). Thats how crap gets filtered out. Check out the Piltdown man hoax as an example and the many frauds committed by that amateur Englishman geologist/paleontologist.

Religion doesnt have any peer review process.

---

You pick whichever you want and call all the others a blend of whatever you want to say they are. People who say "Christian beliefs is a blend of such and such" usually were misguided to see it that way. The Bible itself says repeatedly that all scripture is God-breathed and God-inspired. He himself is the actual author, but he used particular humans to document it for all mankind.

---

Thats what theologists find by comparing these different religions. Christianity isnt the only attempt at a blended religion. There were others in the roman empire and I think one of them is called the Cult of Thecla which also existed in the 1st century but it died out.

Each Christian says something different. Some notice the imperfections and say that jews wrote it and some like you say that the god wrote it through some jews.

---

I was only talking about the God of Christianity.

---

It doesnt matter. The pattern is that logic, reason, the mechanics of nature replaces supernatural explanations. The reverse never happens.

---

Im not sure how a flood can cause different types of materials to layer over hundreds of meters all over the planet.

---

You mean to tell me that you were never educated on what water can do to rock?

---

There is no explanation about the fossil record that creationists can provide. Why arent there human remains, dog remains, or any of todays animals in the oldest layers?

---

There was a whale skeleton found sta1908nding upright on it's tail in a wall of the Grand Canyon that proves there must have been a Great Flood. Do you realize how far the ocean is from the Grand Canyon? The whale couldn't have gotten there any other way.

---

The fossil record suggest there have been at least 3 minor extinction events and 2 major extinction events.

---

The interesting things about suggestions is that what they suggest isn't always true. There were things that suggested to people long ago that the earth was flat, such as boats not being seen anymore if they sailed out far enough.

---

Are you going to tell me what these facts are that suggest that all animals were created at the same time. What dating techniques do creationists use?

---

We read the Bible, specifically Genesis chapter 1. The facts are contained therein.

---

Yes, you do.

---

Why? You know very well what makes evolution seem legitimate.

---

Which findings make evolution theory legitimate to you?

---

None. I wasn't talking about what makes it seem legitimate to me, just legitimate to others.

---

Well ok. I would say that scientists are like me. In fact, I would like to work as a chemist and make discoveries. Scientists are curious people and they check each others work (peer review). Thats how crap gets filtered out. Check out the Piltdown man hoax as an example and the many frauds committed by that amateur Englishman geologist/paleontologist.

Religion doesnt have any peer review process.

---

Scientific facts that people provide ought to go through peer reviews. Aside hoaxing, a scientist can just get something wrong, too. Christianity has an automatic God-review process. Whatever doesn't line up with the Bible, which is God's word, is unacceptable. A peer review is up to imperfect human minds that can use bias and outside intimidation, but God knows more than people, is not biased because all absolute truth is from him, and has nothing to be afraid of.

---

Thats what theologists find by comparing these different religions. Christianity isnt the only attempt at a blended religion. There were others in the roman empire and I think one of them is called the Cult of Thecla which also existed in the 1st century but it died out.

---

Not all theologians (or people who would just call themselves that), are legitimate. They are imperfect humans who can just use their credited expertise to put across their biases.

---

Each Christian says something different. Some notice the imperfections and say that jews wrote it and some like you say that the god wrote it through some jews.

---

No, some Christians say different things, not all. Those who say different things are not entirely going by the Bible, which the Bible itself warns readers to do. They may want to have a few things their own way, They may claim imperfections, but that's because they just choose to disagree, thereby calling the all-knowing, all-seeing God, who established everything good a liar. There are no imperfections to notice, just things that people want to have their own way about, thus practically giving God the finger.

---

You mean to tell me that you were never educated on what water can do to rock?

---

I know what water can do to rock (erosion), but the process is ultra slow. IN the case of the flood, it is talking about rain water. The rain doesnt hit the ground but then it layers up and the rain just hits the water surface. Also, I calculated and it would require 3.12 times the water present in all the oceans/seas to cover the Earth all the way to mount Everest.

So how does water create hundreds of meters of layers of different materials?

---

There was a whale skeleton found standing upright on its tail in a wall of the Grand Canyon that proves there must have been a Great 2000Flood. Do you realize how far the ocean is from the Grand Canyon? The whale couldn't have gotten there any other way.

---

Show me.

---

The interesting things about suggestions is that what they suggest isn't always true. There were things that suggested to people long ago that the earth was flat, such as boats not being seen any more if they sailed out far enough.

---

Actually, the fact that boats go down as they sail far away suggested to people that the Earth wasnt flat, not to mention the calculations done by a greek 2500 years ago.

In terms of extinction events, the layers show a large variation of species and then poof, a bunch of them are gone in the upper layers while some remain. Going up, slowly, new species appear. Creationists dont have an explanation for this.
So, there are 3 minor extinction events (these are local events) and 2 major.
The last one was the dinosaur event, most likely caused by an asteroids impact which tend to be rich in Iridium. This is why there is a layer from 65 million years ago rich in Iridium, all over the globe.

So how do creationists proceed with this finding? Ignore it? Say that all scientists are conducting themselves unprofessionally?

---

We read the Bible, specifically Genesis chapter 1. The facts are contained therein.

---

For what reason have you decided that the Bible is true? It doesnt match up with findings from various scientists.

---

Why? You know very well what makes evolution seem legitimate.
None. I wasn't talking about what makes it seem legitimate to me, just legitimate to others.

---

OK, I thought there was some findings from biologists that you accepted. So, you think that absolutely no change occurs to the ecosystem and to the genes of creatures?

---

Scientific facts that people provide ought to go through peer reviews. Aside hoaxing, a scientist can just get something wrong, too. Christianity has an automatic God-review process. Whatever doesn't line up with the Bible, which is God's word, is unacceptable. A peer review is up to imperfect human minds that can use bias and outside intimidation, but God knows more than people, is not biased because all absolute truth is from him, and has nothing to be afraid of.

---

OK, so you are saying that scientific findings go through peer review but all the scientists are still wrong because it conflicts with the bible.
How do you know the bible has been written by a god? How do you know this god is perfect?

---

Not all theologians (or people who would just call themselves that), are legitimate. They are imperfect humans who can just use their credited expertise to put across their biases.

---

All you have right now is a claim that humans are imperfect and the bible is perfect.
Theologians study different religions and offer what they find. Being a perfect human means what exactly?

---

No, some Christians say different things, not all. Those who say different things are not entirely going by the Bible, which the Bible itself warns readers to do. They may want to have a few things their own way, They may claim imperfections, but that's because they just choose to disagree, thereby calling the all-knowing, all-seeing God, who established everything good a liar. There are no imperfections to notice, just things that people want to have their own way about, thus practically giving God the finger.

---

It is easy to find imperfections in the bible
Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mill_%28theologian%29#Textual_critic
"Mill's work noted over 30,000 discrepancies between some 100 extant New Testament manuscripts."

---

==I know what water can do to rock (erosion), but the process is ultra slow. IN the case of the flood, it is talking about rain water. The rain doesnt hit the ground but then it layers up and the rain just hits the water surface. Also, I calculated and it would require 3.12 times the water present in all the oceans/seas to cover the Earth all the way to mount Everest.

So how does water create hundreds of meters of layers of different materials?

---

A lot of different types of matter wash up and collect over top of each other, becoming petrified rock over time, as other things like fossils are buried in it. Don't forget all the mud and sand that had to be moved around. All that would set and harden and become rock.

---

Show me.

---

This link doesn't mention the Grand Canyon by name as far as I saw, but I think the 1976 reference is it. There are other instances it mentions of whales being found like that, far from the ocean. This page also addresses rock layers. You may want to try the links too. All very informative.

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

---

In terms of extinction events, the layers show a large variation of species and then poof, a bunch of them are gone in the upper layers while some remain. Going up, slowly, new species appear. Creationists dont have an explanation for this.
So, there are 3 minor extinction events (these are local events) and 2 major.
The last one was the dinosaur event, most likely caused by an asteroids impact which tend to be rich in Iridium. This is why there is a layer from 65 million years ago rich in Iridium, all over the globe.

So how do creationists proce1ebced with this finding? Ignore it? Say that all scientists are conducting themselves unprofessionally?

---

I'm sure Creation scientists could explain it. Extinction happens for various reasons, such as animals running out of food, slow birth rates and faster hunting rates, altered ecosystems that are no longer suitable for a species' survival, etc. Different circumstances happened at different times. It's probably as simple as that.

Asteroids are only called that when they fly through space. When they pass through earth's atmosphere, they are known as meteors. I sort of have doubts that a meteor killed the dinosaurs because it should have wiped out other species too. Iridium probably hasn't just come from meteors. All minerals and rocks in outer space and on earth are most likely of the same origin(s).

---

For what reason have you decided that the Bible is true? It doesnt match up with findings from various scientists.

---

As I said before, various scientists have wanted to come up with and legitimize alternate explanations that what the Bible says. Many things not related to creation and geology have convinced me of the existence of God and why it's best to take advice for living life in the Bible, but as far as creation and geology, sites like that one and Answers in Genesis cover it well. Also, I know the nature of man to want concrete, tangible explanations without having to believe in an entity who won't reveal himself to person's satisfaction. I know the nature of man to want to take credit for these explanations and their legitimizing, and to have them spread and accepted. It's a way for them to have a certain power over people. L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology and it has it's followers. Hubbard gained a certain power over those people, which was passed down to his sons, then another person. But evolution is much more widely accepted than Scientology, and all those people are under the certain kind of power of those who maintain evolution and keep working to legitimize it.

---

Why? You know very well what makes evolution seem legitimate.
None. I wasn't talking about what makes it seem legitimate to me, just legitimate to others.



==OK, I thought there was some findings from biologists that you accepted.

---

Sure there are. There are Christian Biologists and even some others promote their respective amounts of truth. BUT you were not just talking about findings from biologists. You specified evolution.

---

So, you think that absolutely no change occurs to the ecosystem and to the genes of creatures?

---

As I said earlier, ecosystems, yes. Genes, I don't know.

---

All you have right now is a claim that humans are imperfect and the bible is perfect.
Theologians study different religions and offer what they find. Being a perfect human means what exactly?

---

Nothing. Only God is perfect. He's above wrongdoing, all-seeing all-powerful, all-knowing.

---

It is easy to find imperfections in the bible

---

If you are in a mindset to just look for imperfections, that's what you will find. If you are in more of a mindset to be objective and give something a fair chance, you will be less likely to find imperfections. If you take sources put out by other people to heart, you are only as good and objective as they are. We must strive to be our individual best, not other people's best. The writers of those sources were not being good or objective. They were biased from the start and only sought to feed their own bias, then put their source out to help others be biased and feed others' bias. That's not being objective at all and it's hampering them- and you.

---

A lot of different types of matter wash up and collect over top of each other, becoming petrified rock over time, as other things like fossils are buried in it. Don't forget all the mud and sand that had to be moved around. All that would set and harden and become rock.

---

That still doesnt explain the layering. There are cases of one type (1) of material, then another type (2), then again type (1) material. There is one such picture in a book I have called the Dictionary of the Earth.

So a single flood phenomenon doesnt explain it.

Also, like I calculated, it would require 3.12 times the current amount of water on Earth to cover all of the Earth all the way to Everest.

Also, there is the issue of fossil layering. A single extinction event should show a mix of all creatures in the same layer.

---

This link doesn't mention the Grand Canyon by name as far as I saw, but I think the 1976 reference is it. There are other instances it mentions of whales being found like that, far from the ocean.

---

It looks like a creationist rumor. I am only able to find this info on creationist websites. Is it available in a science article?

---

I'm sure Creation scientists could explain it.

---

OK, so what is the explanation for the KT-boundary region that is present all over the globe?
Iridium is a rare element on Earth. So, having a layer that has above normal quantity of iridium is suspect of an asteroid impact.

Wikipedia:
The asteroid collision theory, which was bb68rought to wide attention in 1980 by Walter Alvarez and colleagues, links the extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous period to a bolide impact approximately 66 million years ago.[167] Alvarez et al. proposed that a sudden increase in iridium levels, recorded around the world in the period's rock stratum, was direct evidence of the impact.

It has been proposed that smaller land creatures survived on detritus.

---

L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology and it has its followers. Hubbard gained a certain power over those people, which was passed down to his sons, then another person.

---

L. Ron Hubbard is not a scientist and hasnt shown evidence of his claims. Also, one of his sons speaks against him. The video is on youtube.

Do you believe that there was actually a garden of Eden and a talking snake?

---

But evolution is much more widely accepted than Scientology,

---

Yes, why do you think that is? There isnt a single person behind it like L. Ron Hubbard of scientology, or Jesus of the bible. You think all these scientists from different fields, whos research all point to an old Earth are against the bible even when a lot of them are Christians?

---

Nothing. Only God is perfect. He's above wrongdoing, all-seeing all-powerful, all-knowing.

---

My question was, Being a "perfect" human means what exactly?
Are you saying that all humans are imperfect even Adam?
How do you define perfection? What makes the jewish god perfect?

---

If you are in a mindset to just look for imperfections, that's what you will find.

---

Yes, it is true that I look for defects.
Dont you look for defects in things?
That doesnt mean that I want to sit on the defects. I prefer to clean them out. It is possible to do that with science, so it improves and collects more data as we go along. The bible is stuck with the problems.

Example:

---

STEALING A HORSE
Luke 19:27
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over thembring them here and kill them in front of me.'"
Luke 19:28
After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
Luke 19:29
As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them,
Luke 19:30
Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here.
Luke 19:31If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' say, 'The Lord needs it.'"

---

---

There was a whale skeleton found standing upright on it's tail in a wall of the Grand Canyon that proves there must have been a Great Flood. Do you realize how far the ocean is from the Grand Canyon? The whale couldn't have gotten there any other way.

---

I just can't get past this nonsense. The only places you will ever find that say anything like this are a few obscure Christian websites. certainly even you can realize that there is nothing scientifically documented that says this. Come on, don't you want to be able to back up what you believe with SOME kind of fact checking?

You mean the creation story and great flood that were part of much older stories that had been orally passed down through generations and finally written down? Stories that were originally conceived by superstitious peoples who had no concept of scientific methods and attributed a supernatural explanation to everything? Hmmm

---

You mean the creation story and great flood that were part of much older stories that had been orally passed down through generations and finally written down?

---

No, I mean that God was there at the Creation because he created it, and he was there for the flood since he sent it, and generations later, he himself related those things to Moses for him to write down.

---

Stories that were originally conceived by superstitious peoples who had no concept of scientific methods and attributed a supernatural explanation to everything? Hmmm

---

Those stories have no bearing here.

---

Those stories have no bearing here.

---

Um, yeah, they do. Just like the Greeks, Egyptians, Norse tribes, and any other primitive society, the Semitic tribes came up with their own stories to explain that which they did not understand. Much of the creation story goes back to Mesopotamia, and the flood story itself has its origin in the epic of Gilgamesh.

Uh, no, they don't. These links debunk Gilgamesh, and one of them mentions other stories:

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/the-background-of-the-gilgamesh-epic/

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/creation-myths/is-genesis-111-a-derivation-from-ancient-myths/

So your "evidence" comes from a website by christians for christians? Somewhat partisan, don't you think? Like getting all of your information from Fox news.

No, it just HAPPENS to be there, and those links aren't pushing anything but good reasoning about what the you were talking about. The information there is for everyone, not just Christians, even though the site's mission might be Christian.

I just want to discuss something here, though. This site isn't pushing "good reasoning". You believe that the bible is the word of god, that's fine. I don't. Even if I still believed in a higher power, I couldn't accept that the bible is infallible, because it is. It's full of constant inconsistencies. It justifies slavery, bigotry, misogyny, and hatred. And if that weren't enough, the collected gospels and scriptures were hand-picked by a group of men, who chose what books they liked and didn't like based on their own ideologies and politics, and decided from there what was to be church dogma. It is not the infallible word of any god. To dismiss any claims that might go against the bible simply because you're afraid that it might make it infallible in your eyes is dangerous.

If you are a faithful believer, great. I won't go out of my way to stop you (because, despite what the nutters like to claim, there is no war on christianity). But to deny historical or scientific fact because it goes against the holy rule book is backwards thinking.

Think what you will about the site, but I was saying those links I provided were pushing good reasoning.

---

I couldn't accept that the bible is infallible, because it is. It's full of constant inconsistencies. It justifies slavery, bigotry, misogyny, and hatred. And if that weren't enough, the collected gospels and scriptures were hand-picked by a group of men, who chose what books they liked and didn't like based on their own ideologies and politics, and decided from there what was to be church dogma. It is not the infallible word of any god.

---

You have your beliefs because are going by the teachings of people who just hate the Bible, so they made it their mission to rationalize their hatred and get others to hate it too. They would not come right out and say this, so of course you would doubt it or flat out deny it. They hate the Bible for it's truth. It keeps people in line if they follow it and makes people feel bad for their actions if they don't. So instead ob68f admitting their wrongs, asking God's forgiveness and living right, they get offensive and attack God and the Bible.

---

To dismiss any claims that might go against the bible simply because you're afraid that it might make it infallible in your eyes is dangerous.

---

I'm not afraid. It's the people who attack it who are afraid. They don't want to face the facts of how imperfect and in need of God's forgiveness and love they are. There is nothing to fear about it becoming infallible in my eyes. It has held up for ages and it will go on after I'm gone. I see every day how perfect it is.

---

If you are a faithful believer, great. I won't go out of my way to stop you (because, despite what the nutters like to claim, there is no war on christianity).

---

There is. Bibles are being removed from motel/hotel rooms little by little. Military atheist associations work to get even light mentions of God out of the military. Hillary Clinton just said the national motto is, "Out of many, we are one", but the official motto has always been "In God We Trust". I could go on and on.

---

But to deny historical or scientific fact because it goes against the holy rule book is backwards thinking.

---

Not just because of that. I see the truth. I don't just read something and believe it. I also know that people who hate the Bible also work in the science fields and do whatever they can to that end to to make the Bible unbelievable. Many times, all they have to do is throw their names and degrees behind their mere words and just say they researched and studied and experimented. We weren't there to see them do nothing, so they can say whatever they want and it's exalted like "great science".

Okay, you really are reaching with your "arguments", so I'll leave you. But as for Hilary, she's correct. The national motto was at the beginning "E Pluribus Unem", or "Our of many, one". It wasn't until the 40s or 50s that christians afraid of communism had it changed to "In God We Trust". Again, please, pick up a history book.

---

You have your beliefs because are going by the teachings of people who just hate the Bible, so they made it their mission to rationalize their hatred and get others to hate it too.

---

But aren't you also going by the teachings of people? The bible has been written by ancient humans.

---

Okay, you really are reaching with your "arguments",

---

An excuse made up by people who can't out-reason someone.

---

so I'll leave you.

---

Gee. We were having so much fun.

---

But as for Hilary, she's correct. The national motto was at the beginning "E Pluribus Unem", or "Our of many, one". It wasn't until the 40s or 50s that christians afraid of communism had it changed to "In God We Trust". Again, please, pick up a history book.

---

You pick up a hb68istory book- preferably not one that came out in the past 20 years or so, so you have one that wasn't revised by the Democratic agenda. "E Pluribus Unem" was never the official motto, but it stood in for one until "In God We Trust" was adopted". Plus Hillary said the unofficial one wrong anyway. You typed it right. I postedd it the way she said it.

---

But aren't you also going by the teachings of people? The bible has been written by ancient humans.

---

They wrote what God had them to write. It all came right from him. The Bible says this is many places.

---

They wrote what God had them to write. It all came right from him. The Bible says this is many places.

---

So they say. But is it true that it c111comes from a god?
I didn't see anything in there that could not have been written by primitive man (jews).

All the Bible scholars who are also literature scholars say that no human could have written such a wise, loving book.

---

All the Bible scholars who are also literature scholars say that no human could have written such a wise, loving book.

---

Humans can write wise and loving books as well and include parts about genocide, massacring other villages, saying he who throws babies onto rocks will be happy.

---

Humans can write wise and loving books as well

---

But not like the Bible, according to those scholars I mentioned who were scholars of both the Bible and other literature.

---

and include parts about genocide, massacring other villages, saying he who throws babies onto rocks will be happy.

---

It's easy to believe and say these things when you don't understand them in the right context. The ancient Hebrew isn't taken into consideration, and only one verse may be taken into consideration when it takes reading and studying the whole passage to understand it.

---

But not like the Bible, according to those scholars I mentioned who were scholars of both the Bible and other literature.

---

It is a pretty good work however, I don't see why the bible scholars you are thinking of qualify it as something that could only come from a god.
There isn't anything super hyper intelligent in the bible.

---

It's easy to believe and say these things when you don't understand them in the right context. The ancient Hebrew isn't taken into consideration, and only one verse may be taken into consideration when it takes reading and studying the whole passage to understand it.

---

What I understand is that ancient cultures attacked each other for various reasons such as resources like gold, animals, tools, women, land, cultural differences. They were extremely cruel with each other.

It was difficult times and I'm sure plenty of potential cultures got wiped out, leaving no trace of their existence.

---

It is a pretty good work however, I don't see why the bible scholars you are thinking of qualify it as something that could only come from a god.

---

You are just you. You aren't a Bible scholar and you may not even be a literature scholar. And you may not be ready to 5b4come into full realization that you need such a thing as the Bible or God in your life, so you aren't open to properly receiving such a thing.

---

There isn't anything super hyper intelligent in the bible.

---

Actually there is. But more so, there is wisdom and depth. If you aren't ready to explore something deeply and study it with the right kind of heart and mindset, then sure, the Bible won't seem like much to you.

---

What I understand is that ancient cultures attacked each other for various reasons such as resources like gold, animals, tools, women, land, cultural differences. They were extremely cruel with each other.

---

Not all of them. But yeah, people were less civilized and less understanding of actual good living the further back in history you go. Things aren't perfect yet and they never will be, the more people gave themselves over to Biblical principles (whether or not that's where they got them), the better things were.

---

It was difficult times and I'm sure plenty of potential cultures got wiped out, leaving no trace of their existence.

---

You must be thinking of the Aztecs and the Incas. The other side of the world is where the Bible comes from, not Central/South America.

---

You are just you. You aren't a Bible scholar and you may not even be a literature scholar.

---

Yes, I am me. Anyone can read the bible. There isnt any concept that is complicated in it. It isnt a game programming/optimization book or calculus. However, there are scholars who read the bible and criticize it and some scholars who are into it and defend it.

---

And you may not be ready to come into full realization that you need such a thing as the Bible or God in your life, so you aren't open to properly receiving such a thing.

---

I was a Christian and I dumped it because it is just a religion. Why do you say that you need the jewish god?

---

so you aren't open to properly receiving such a thing.

---

I realized that it is just a religion so I dumped it. Maybe you will realize it as well, maybe you wont and stick with that old jewish (and other middle eastern) culture.

---

Actually there is.

---

Show me these super hyper intelligent lines that could only come from a god.

---

But more so, there is wisdom and depth.

---

Yes there is wisdom, but you can find wisdom in other things as well.
So, we really havent established why you are a believer in the bible yet.

---

Not all of them.

---

Which ones werent cruel?

---

the more people gave themselves over to Biblical principles (whether or not that's where they got them), the better things were.

---

I disagree. I dont want someone to be stoned because they are gay, stoning a daughter because she had sex, killing other villages and burning them down because they are different, raping a girl and paying her father 50 silver and marrying the girl, etc.
Oh yes, killing 2 birds to cure leprosy.

There is too much primitive mans nonsense in the bible.

---

You must be thinking of the Aztecs and the Incas.

---

No, they left enough evidence of their existence. Im thinking of the people Jenghis khan killed.

---

Yes, I am me. Anyone can read the bible.

---

Yes, but not everyone studies it and makes themselves open to receiving the power and enlightenment from it.

---

There isnt any concept that is complicated in it.

---

You are proving there is, since you are not opening yourself to receiving the power and enlightenment from it. It speaks of such people, and obviously, that would be complicated for you to grasp.

---

It isnt a game programming/optimization book or calculus.

---

No, but there are things like above response in it, which you are allowing to be way beyond you.

---

However, there are scholars who read the bible and criticize it and some scholars who are into it and defend it.

---

The critics can be different kinds of scholars who should not be listened to. No one who has experienced the power and enlightenment in it would criticize it. Enemies of it's message and of Christians would, out of spite and ignorance.

---

I was a Christian and I dumped it because it is just a religion.

---

You must have had no mentor. Did you go to church? Did you pray- at all? Did you pray the most important prayer- the prayer of salvation?

---

Why do you say that you need the jewish god?

---

The Jewish god is not exactly my god. My God is a Trinity, the Son of which came to earth in human flesh and died for our sins. Jews don't believe this. My whole family has needed God. We felt his power and presence and guiding as he kept us alive, well, and in some cases, away from paths in life that would have gotten us in trouble with the law. Just like with computers or microwaves, once you have God and he has you, you can't imagine life without him. You probably never really let him have you.

---

Show me these super hyper intelligent lines that could only come from a god.

---

Just read the whole Bible! You wouldn't understand unless you do like I have said in this post. Otherwise, you could shoot everything do5b4wn.

---

Yes there is wisdom, but you can find wisdom in other things as well.

---

Not wise enough to come from an all-knowing, all-seeing God.

---

So, we really havent established why you are a believer in the bible yet.

---

Well, if my words in this post don't do it for you, I doubt anything will.

---

Which ones werent cruel?

---

First, there is cruel by your standards today and cruel by their standards. If they were obeying God, there was no cruelty because God knew what he was doing. To be cruel, you have to have cruelty in your heart. There are some people who think hunting is cruel, but hunters say it isn't and other people see why it isn't. Same goes for the fur trade. Ancient cruelty to people was doled out by groups like the Huns, pirates and their crews and people like Vlad Tepes. They had cruel hearts. Your average tribe, which is most of them, were not cruel by the standards of the day and it's up to us to adjust our understanding of cruelty to theirs when studying them so we can understand them better. After all, we have it easy today compared to them and we have more reasonable ways available to us to get what we want than they did.

---

the more people gave themselves over to Biblical principles (whether or not that's where they got them), the better things were.


I disagree. I dont want someone to be stoned because they are gay, stoning a daughter because she had sex, killing other villages and burning them down because they are different, raping a girl and paying her father 50 silver and marrying the girl, etc.

Oh yes, killing 2 birds to cure leprosy

---

Do you seriously think we want any of that? Do you really think we mope and gripe that those things carry penalties, so we just back down and wish we could do those things without consequences? That's ridiculous.

We look at those things in the Bible with the enlightened understanding that those things were just for those people at that time, after living lives of slavery, and with their parents and descendants in slavery, so they couldn't understand yet how to make their own lives in a civilized, non-barbaric fashion.

---

There is too much primitive mans nonsense in the bible.

---

That doesn't mean anything coming from you, which I've already explained in this post.

---

The Jewish god is not exactly my god. My God is a Trinity, the Son of which came to earth in human flesh and died for our sins. Jews don't believe this.

---

That depends on what type of Jew you are talking about. But God is the same God in any case.

Plenty of Jews accept the full Bible. They are known as Christians. Christianity is the second half of Judaism, and Judaism is the first half of Christianity. They are both parts of the same one thing.

Some Jews reject the second half of the Bible a.k.a. the New Testament. But nevertheless, even those Jews are compelled to believe in the same God as in the full Bible because the Trinity is also present in the Old Testament (i.e. the Book of Genesis when the Godhead created the world and all life; and the prophets who spoke of Jesus, etc.).

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman

ROFLMAO!!!

You should write for comedies.



Time wounds all heels.

Does the Bible follow the scientific method? If not than IT IS NOT SCIENCE! End of story.

I found this definition:

---

The scientific method is the process by which scientists endeavor to construct an accurate representation of the world.

---

God is the first and ultimate scientist. He knew what it took to create the world and people and animals and make their bodies work in the first place. He knew that man and woman need each other as companions and that children need one parent of each gender for the best development. He knew what it took to put the planets in just the right position and set their revolutions and orbits in just the right direction and speed so that we may exist and persist. He knew we needed gravity and oxygen. He knew we needed water and light and just how much of those things we needed. He knew how to get all this going and he got it going. No human scientist has outdone him. He never had a failure and never even had to go to school.

Ray Comfort is insane con artist. No one should listen to him?

---

Are there any creationists here who agree Ray?

---

All Bible-believing Christians a.k.a. legitimate Christians agree with that.

---

Tell me why you agree with him?

---

Tell me why you put your faith in the anti-godly, man-made myth of evolution over God's Word.

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman

I would figure Christians want to distance themselves as far away as they can from con man Comfort.

---

I would figure Christians want to distance themselves as far away as they can from con man Comfort.

---

Most Christians do not know about the alleged cancer scandal of which you speak. And those that do know of it are still unsure of whether it's true or not since it's never been verified by a credible source.

But anyway, the content of the Bible has been true since the dawn of time just as the evolution myth has been false since the dawn of time. Ray Comfort is irrelevant to those facts. Those facts would remain true just the same regardless of whether Ray Comfort supported them or not.

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman

The book that says the earth has corners and that gays and bratty children should be killed is true?

Yes. "Four corners" isn't literal and those "kill" orders were for the Israelites in those times.

Well then its not best to take anything the book says literal. And the fact that it say to kill at all is extremely disturbing.

It doesn't mean anything about whether or not it's best to take anything the book says literal. The writing in the Bible is better than anything you or I could write or speak. It's deep and anyone who can understand it's depth can know how to apply it to their life.

The "killing" words are not at all deeply disturbing, unless you don't understand what's really behind the orders and why they were issued.

So we need to understand things before we criticize them. Just reading the Bible like it's just like anything else won't hack it. You have to study it and have the mentoring for it, and it helps to know the culture of that area of the world at that time, and what it was liked to have generations of being raised a certain way back then.

It commands to kill what am I missing? Like "If a man commits adultery with another mans wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

You are missing a lot! These people lived their lives as victims of savagery and cruelty, and so did their parents and grandparents. All they knew was savagery and cruelty, They were a rowdy, hard to satisfy bunch that today's accepted rules of conduct would not good enough for. Wrongdoers of some kinds had to be under death threats until the people could become more refined, sensible and wiser.

Despite what I said before, are you still somehow thinking it commands us today to kill? It doesn't. Jesus came later and canceled out rules like that.

So the Old Testament is null and void? I hear Christians use the Old Testament all the time.

No, there are lots of things we can learn from it, such as what God thinks of certain sins, and the early history of the nation of Israel, and the 10 Commandments.

So really its cherry picking.

Really experienced Christians know how to read and take the Bible and you don't. You can't even make up your mind whether it's better for us to take the kill orders to heart in today's world or not.

Of course Io know the Bible is wrong when it says to kill. Im not crazy.

---

Io know the Bible is wrong when it says to kill. Im not crazy.

---

Then how come 99-100% of your fellow darwinists are crazy and love to kill? Especially unborn babies, who they've killed billions of and continue to do so on a daily basis.

So since you are not crazy and you are against killing, or so you say, then my questions to you are:

1. Like I just asked, why are 99-100% of your fellow darwinists crazies who love to kill?

2. Do you yourself support the mass killings of unborn babies as long as those killings are labeled with a false label euphemism in order to pretend that they are not murders? [Common false label euphemisms that darwinists use to "justify" murdering babies include "abortion," "fetus," "choice," "reproductive rights," women's rights" etc.]

3. Will you renounce those 99-100% of darwinists who are evil crazy baby killers?

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman

If you are referring to abortion then no Im not in favor of that unless a rape occurred. But the Bible isnt exactly pro life according to Numbers 5:11-31. Plus there are Christians who think abortion is fine.