I’m quite a fan of the beginning sentiment. Good works and in-genuine words or actions are not what get you anywhere. At least according to the Bible.
I also like the way the poem is written in general. I think it carries on to the next concept well.
The more science classes I take and the more research I do, the more I realize just how much the science world exaggerates or even outright lies about disproving the Bible. Just because their view is MORE scientifically PROBABLE does not make it definite TRUTH. But I’m getting further into it than most people like to discuss with idiots like me.
I always appreciate people’s outright honesty about what they think.
I enjoyed reading
Posted 5 Years Ago
1 of 1 people found this review constructive.
5 Years Ago
What examples can you give me of "science" books out right lying to disprove the bible? read moreWhat examples can you give me of "science" books out right lying to disprove the bible?
And the "truth" does not always mean the same thing in every situation, in every discipline, for every person. Scientific truth, ontological truth, moral truth, etc., etc. are not at all the same things and they are not all mutually exclusive. I think you are confused over that and it is skewing your view of the hard sciences in a needlessly negative way. You don't have to be an atheist to be a scientist and you don't have to call the science's "liars" to be religious. The "either/or" point of view is a toxically ignorant one in my opinion.
5 Years Ago
First let me apologize. Re-reading my review I notice it’s kind of rude. Not sure what’s gotten .. read moreFirst let me apologize. Re-reading my review I notice it’s kind of rude. Not sure what’s gotten into me lately.
True! Science and religion are not opposites and I am not for such harmful dichotomous thinking. However, I keep learning more and more things that science does not definitively know. After considering their methods of dating, I’m seeing that such dating methods haven’t and can’t be tested because it would take thousands of years. Also through our very history we can see how often scientist have discovered a new age for the earth. Yet they decide to say things like “we know” the earth is 4.6 billion years old. NO YOU DON’T. It is most PROBABLE, yes, according to your plain scientific facts, however science is not suppose to rely so heavily on PROBABILITY. It should be willing to be uncertain for even thousands of years when it doesn’t know definitively. But that is the problem. We humans aren’t so willing to be uncertain. We are bias in our need for certainty.
I am not one for trying to “prove” the Bible because that defeats its purpose. God could just show up in the sky if all he cared about was us having knowledge of his existence.
Once again I’m already noticing how rude I’m being. Don’t know what’s up with me. I’m not actually angry while writing this. It’s just opinion. So I probs owe you an apology for my bitter attitude.
5 Years Ago
No need to apologize.
Hmm... the age of the earth is pretty well agreed upon, at bet.. read moreNo need to apologize.
Hmm... the age of the earth is pretty well agreed upon, at between 4.3ish and 4.6ish billion years... since about 1956. By your definition anything with a margin for error has no value unless you believe in it, you don't even care about the odds, you're willing to ignore that simply to go with your belief - and that's unintellectual as it gets in my view, kinda ignorant actually. To bad you don't believe in winning the lottery...
And again... you are confusing different definitions of fact and certainty. Technically, every single thing is uncertain to varying degrees -- EVERYTHING. Ever hear of a dude named Heisenberg? Check out his uncertainty principle.
Perhaps you should look into how they came to those dates before undermining their value. Here, let me help you.... radio carbon dating has to do with the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 and works very well for material that is or was organic. But this is only useful for certain applications and is limited given that the earth was once a molten ball of rock for several hundred million years. However, that is not the only method of dating things. It's the most popular one people who don't actually know what they're talking about reference, but, it is not at all the only method. Dating the age of inorganic material applies the same concept but with different elements. Because some elements decay at a very steady and predictable rate we can use the ratios of what those elements decay into to determine an approximate age within a few hundred million years. The most common reference material to accurately dating the earth is a material called zircon. Which only forms under extreme conditions (like planet formation) and is chemically inert.
It's one thing to be skeptical, it's another thing to undermine something without knowing anything about it. It's the sign of a naturally closed mind. I can't respect that, no matter what you believe in...
5 Years Ago
Yes you are repeating my science book. I never said anything about rejecting it. There is a differen.. read moreYes you are repeating my science book. I never said anything about rejecting it. There is a difference between whole heartedly standing by something and suggesting it’s the most probable answer.
It’s not about denying science. Yes because of my faith I am positive the earth isn’t that old, but why would I expect someone who doesn’t have the faith I have to agree with that. I wouldn’t. But what I wish for them to do, is to not be manipulative causing kids to grow up assuming science and religion are contradictory. They aren’t.
5 Years Ago
Okay, then why are you confused about how the age of the earth is pretty well established?
.. read moreOkay, then why are you confused about how the age of the earth is pretty well established?
If you believe in biblical events in a literal sense than by default you are rejecting modern science. Do you really think the earth is 8 thousand years old, that dinosaurs didn't really exist (or coexisted with man), gay people go straight to hell, and that some dude built a boat big enough for two of every single living animal on the planet to survive a global flood? Those things aren't just improbable, they are impossible... not to mention have no logical evidence to support them. But dating the earth through logical and well established science... that's just crazy talk. Do you not see how insane that sounds?
5 Years Ago
I am totally aware. Heck I believe in a virgins birth. How the heck is that possible?! Obviously for.. read moreI am totally aware. Heck I believe in a virgins birth. How the heck is that possible?! Obviously for me it’s not about what is scientifically possible.
However, that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in science. I just believe it secondary to the Bible.
“PRETTY WELL established” is my point. I’m annoyed with the science world because I feel manipulated by their claims that use the language that assumes their findings have no possible faults, and how they ingrained that in kids minds like me. Didn’t keep me from believing the Bible, it’s just annoying that I feel like I’ve been deceived. It kind of seems hypocritical on their part.
5 Years Ago
Your fallacy is one called 'the appeal to possibility'. Simply because something can be wrong does .. read moreYour fallacy is one called 'the appeal to possibility'. Simply because something can be wrong does not mean it will be wrong. In concert with verifiable facts of our physical reality, your position is logically weak to the point of being borderline illogical.
You also misunderstand the definition of scientific theory... the word 'fact' does not mean the same thing universally. "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Everything is always open to be questioned in the sciences, peer review rigorous testing and critical thought are the hallmarks of good science. The problem with your view is that, not only is impossible to objectively question, part of the doctrine is that it is frowned upon to question anything in the first place. To make fantastic claims you must present fantastic evidence... which you seem incapable of seeing unless it fits your belief system --- the hallmark of anti-intellectual mind.
5 Years Ago
I’m not arguing the Bible with scientific proof. I’m arguing against scientific “proof” that.. read moreI’m not arguing the Bible with scientific proof. I’m arguing against scientific “proof” that the Bible is false.
Again. No reason for those who do not believe what I believe to have the kind of faith in what I have faith in.
I understand it is CRAZY to believe the things Christians believe. Virgins don’t just have babies and people don’t rise from the dead! It is either a large fault in humanities ability to reason, or big proof that something is providing this thing we call “faith”.
5 Years Ago
Again... if you are saying you literally believe in those things, by default, you are arguing agains.. read moreAgain... if you are saying you literally believe in those things, by default, you are arguing against established scientific theory with only the bible to back you up. I'm surprised you can't see your own internal contradictions. (sigh)
You also suffer from a fallacy called the "appeal to faith". i.e. - "X is true (premise); if you had faith you'd see that (invalid conclusion)."
Even though reason clearly and throughly refutes your position, you still hold to it because that's probably just how you were raised. You are trapped in dogma. Imagine if you grew up somewhere else, like, Ramadi Iraq... do you think you would still come to the same conclusions?
There's a christian philosopher named Alvin Plantinga I think you should look into; especially a book called "where the conflict really lies". You can certainly believe in whatever you want without being illogical or contradictory about it... right now, you are trying to argue belief has precedance over established scientific theory for no logical reason. Your position is inherently weak for that reason.
5 Years Ago
-There is no logical reason for a person to argue belief has precedance over established scientific .. read more-There is no logical reason for a person to argue belief has precedance over established scientific theory. -
•This is actually my dads position.
-Christianity and the Bible can be proved logically, scientifically, historically, and philosophically-
•This is my sisters position.
Both are some of the strongest Christians I know. I’ve fried my brain listening to their arguments and Ravi Zacharias already did enough of that.
Your point about growing up in another place doesn’t hold because I can tell you a story about a women from the Middle East who had a dream, became a Christian, and after a lot of tragic consequences ended up in a church in southern TN without any family behind her.
I don’t think you understand my intentions. I am not trying to prove Christianity to you. I am not trying to prove my belief has precedence over science. I AM NOT SMART ENOUGH! What I can do, is point out the hypocritical nature of the scientific community as I come across it.
Like I always have, I will continue to research and grow my knowledge till I die, but I don’t believe I have to know all that stuff to figure out myself or my place in this world. Thank goodness because I’m really not the brightest person.
I don’t have to know enough, reason enough, do enough good things. I don’t have to BE enough, because I have someone who is enough for me. Yet I will still strive to be the best me that I’ve been created to be. I wish I could explain how I know this through logical facts, but I can’t. Doesn’t mean no one can. It means I can’t at this point in my life. I know that makes me sound stupid and nieve, but I’ve been called that too much throughout my life to be surprised or phased by it.
5 Years Ago
You can pretend you're not trying to prove religion to me all you want... but when you say things li.. read moreYou can pretend you're not trying to prove religion to me all you want... but when you say things like belief has precedence over reasoned science it's pretty clear you don't actually understand what you're trying to say. You're incapable of seeing the forest through the trees... trying to explain this to you has been like bashing my head against the wall. You can't even see your own contradictions a paragraph apart. Ugh... I have nothing further to say to you. Have a nice night.
5 Years Ago
When you make a post about Hypocriticy and manipulation and the other person turns it into a religio.. read moreWhen you make a post about Hypocriticy and manipulation and the other person turns it into a religion verses science argument 🙄
5 Years Ago
You're the one who started the whole "they don't know how old the earth is" crap with a weak logical.. read moreYou're the one who started the whole "they don't know how old the earth is" crap with a weak logical argument and a poor grasp of the facts. The direction this thread took is entirely on you. Maybe, I don't know, have a reasoned argument behind the things you say instead of just saying... "because faith" That might help you sound less foolish in the future.
Literally the only argument I gave was that they haven’t proven their dating methods through real-.. read moreLiterally the only argument I gave was that they haven’t proven their dating methods through real-time experimentation, and I stated that to prove their hypocrisy. The rest WAS me explaining faith.
5 Years Ago
You 'literally' said that science books lie specifically to disprove the bible... in your very first.. read moreYou 'literally' said that science books lie specifically to disprove the bible... in your very first post. Are you trying to be manipulative now or did you just forget what you already said then and always think you're in the right as a default mode? Either way, it's not very intellectually honest. The reason I have less respect for you now has nothing to do with your beliefs. Can we be done now?
5 Years Ago
The scientific COMMUNITY not science!!! Yea night.
Yourself, you are are talking to yourself. But because you have spent too much time in a locked room, it is beginning to sound like a discourse with God.
Posted 5 Years Ago
1 of 1 people found this review constructive.
5 Years Ago
It's a rhetorical question... I'm talking to no one, since I'm an atheist; you can be talking to wh.. read moreIt's a rhetorical question... I'm talking to no one, since I'm an atheist; you can be talking to whomever you please depending upon your own point of view. On a side note, I'm actually quite social in real life... don't go projecting your own situation on me. That's bush league holmes.
5 Years Ago
Hah! I guess that's the problem with crypticism, far too much room for false interpretation. As an a.. read moreHah! I guess that's the problem with crypticism, far too much room for false interpretation. As an aside you can be an Atheist and still converse with God - I do that s**t all the time.
5 Years Ago
Sure. Whatever you say.
5 Years Ago
Things like "Go f**k yourself" and "are you asleep at the whee?", "what the f**k is that? and do you.. read moreThings like "Go f**k yourself" and "are you asleep at the whee?", "what the f**k is that? and do you have an extra chromosome?" You know, normal s**t.
5 Years Ago
Um... okay.
5 Years Ago
We talk a lot in traffic.
5 Years Ago
Just say what you mean kid, this ain't a poem. That cryptic BS doesn't make you look profound or in.. read moreJust say what you mean kid, this ain't a poem. That cryptic BS doesn't make you look profound or intellectual... it makes you look pretentious and "try-hard".
5 Years Ago
I didn't realize sarcasm was so hard to understand.
5 Years Ago
Eh, it's just annoying. You're not as clever as you think you are.
5 Years Ago
Would you say it's as annoying as being called holmes by a man with jheri curls?
Classy response. I didn't criticize your looks, just your responses. Given your situation I could .. read moreClassy response. I didn't criticize your looks, just your responses. Given your situation I could call you a hypocrite for tying physical appearance to human value.
Like I said, you're not as clever as you think you are.
5 Years Ago
It's not the curls I have a problem with, it's the condescension beneath the curls that bothers me -.. read moreIt's not the curls I have a problem with, it's the condescension beneath the curls that bothers me - the hair just adds a deeper level of irony to the term "bush league".
5 Years Ago
Right. That's not bullshit at all. Can we be done with this now? You're annoying to deal with.
I’m quite a fan of the beginning sentiment. Good works and in-genuine words or actions are not what get you anywhere. At least according to the Bible.
I also like the way the poem is written in general. I think it carries on to the next concept well.
The more science classes I take and the more research I do, the more I realize just how much the science world exaggerates or even outright lies about disproving the Bible. Just because their view is MORE scientifically PROBABLE does not make it definite TRUTH. But I’m getting further into it than most people like to discuss with idiots like me.
I always appreciate people’s outright honesty about what they think.
I enjoyed reading
Posted 5 Years Ago
1 of 1 people found this review constructive.
5 Years Ago
What examples can you give me of "science" books out right lying to disprove the bible? read moreWhat examples can you give me of "science" books out right lying to disprove the bible?
And the "truth" does not always mean the same thing in every situation, in every discipline, for every person. Scientific truth, ontological truth, moral truth, etc., etc. are not at all the same things and they are not all mutually exclusive. I think you are confused over that and it is skewing your view of the hard sciences in a needlessly negative way. You don't have to be an atheist to be a scientist and you don't have to call the science's "liars" to be religious. The "either/or" point of view is a toxically ignorant one in my opinion.
5 Years Ago
First let me apologize. Re-reading my review I notice it’s kind of rude. Not sure what’s gotten .. read moreFirst let me apologize. Re-reading my review I notice it’s kind of rude. Not sure what’s gotten into me lately.
True! Science and religion are not opposites and I am not for such harmful dichotomous thinking. However, I keep learning more and more things that science does not definitively know. After considering their methods of dating, I’m seeing that such dating methods haven’t and can’t be tested because it would take thousands of years. Also through our very history we can see how often scientist have discovered a new age for the earth. Yet they decide to say things like “we know” the earth is 4.6 billion years old. NO YOU DON’T. It is most PROBABLE, yes, according to your plain scientific facts, however science is not suppose to rely so heavily on PROBABILITY. It should be willing to be uncertain for even thousands of years when it doesn’t know definitively. But that is the problem. We humans aren’t so willing to be uncertain. We are bias in our need for certainty.
I am not one for trying to “prove” the Bible because that defeats its purpose. God could just show up in the sky if all he cared about was us having knowledge of his existence.
Once again I’m already noticing how rude I’m being. Don’t know what’s up with me. I’m not actually angry while writing this. It’s just opinion. So I probs owe you an apology for my bitter attitude.
5 Years Ago
No need to apologize.
Hmm... the age of the earth is pretty well agreed upon, at bet.. read moreNo need to apologize.
Hmm... the age of the earth is pretty well agreed upon, at between 4.3ish and 4.6ish billion years... since about 1956. By your definition anything with a margin for error has no value unless you believe in it, you don't even care about the odds, you're willing to ignore that simply to go with your belief - and that's unintellectual as it gets in my view, kinda ignorant actually. To bad you don't believe in winning the lottery...
And again... you are confusing different definitions of fact and certainty. Technically, every single thing is uncertain to varying degrees -- EVERYTHING. Ever hear of a dude named Heisenberg? Check out his uncertainty principle.
Perhaps you should look into how they came to those dates before undermining their value. Here, let me help you.... radio carbon dating has to do with the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 and works very well for material that is or was organic. But this is only useful for certain applications and is limited given that the earth was once a molten ball of rock for several hundred million years. However, that is not the only method of dating things. It's the most popular one people who don't actually know what they're talking about reference, but, it is not at all the only method. Dating the age of inorganic material applies the same concept but with different elements. Because some elements decay at a very steady and predictable rate we can use the ratios of what those elements decay into to determine an approximate age within a few hundred million years. The most common reference material to accurately dating the earth is a material called zircon. Which only forms under extreme conditions (like planet formation) and is chemically inert.
It's one thing to be skeptical, it's another thing to undermine something without knowing anything about it. It's the sign of a naturally closed mind. I can't respect that, no matter what you believe in...
5 Years Ago
Yes you are repeating my science book. I never said anything about rejecting it. There is a differen.. read moreYes you are repeating my science book. I never said anything about rejecting it. There is a difference between whole heartedly standing by something and suggesting it’s the most probable answer.
It’s not about denying science. Yes because of my faith I am positive the earth isn’t that old, but why would I expect someone who doesn’t have the faith I have to agree with that. I wouldn’t. But what I wish for them to do, is to not be manipulative causing kids to grow up assuming science and religion are contradictory. They aren’t.
5 Years Ago
Okay, then why are you confused about how the age of the earth is pretty well established?
.. read moreOkay, then why are you confused about how the age of the earth is pretty well established?
If you believe in biblical events in a literal sense than by default you are rejecting modern science. Do you really think the earth is 8 thousand years old, that dinosaurs didn't really exist (or coexisted with man), gay people go straight to hell, and that some dude built a boat big enough for two of every single living animal on the planet to survive a global flood? Those things aren't just improbable, they are impossible... not to mention have no logical evidence to support them. But dating the earth through logical and well established science... that's just crazy talk. Do you not see how insane that sounds?
5 Years Ago
I am totally aware. Heck I believe in a virgins birth. How the heck is that possible?! Obviously for.. read moreI am totally aware. Heck I believe in a virgins birth. How the heck is that possible?! Obviously for me it’s not about what is scientifically possible.
However, that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in science. I just believe it secondary to the Bible.
“PRETTY WELL established” is my point. I’m annoyed with the science world because I feel manipulated by their claims that use the language that assumes their findings have no possible faults, and how they ingrained that in kids minds like me. Didn’t keep me from believing the Bible, it’s just annoying that I feel like I’ve been deceived. It kind of seems hypocritical on their part.
5 Years Ago
Your fallacy is one called 'the appeal to possibility'. Simply because something can be wrong does .. read moreYour fallacy is one called 'the appeal to possibility'. Simply because something can be wrong does not mean it will be wrong. In concert with verifiable facts of our physical reality, your position is logically weak to the point of being borderline illogical.
You also misunderstand the definition of scientific theory... the word 'fact' does not mean the same thing universally. "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Everything is always open to be questioned in the sciences, peer review rigorous testing and critical thought are the hallmarks of good science. The problem with your view is that, not only is impossible to objectively question, part of the doctrine is that it is frowned upon to question anything in the first place. To make fantastic claims you must present fantastic evidence... which you seem incapable of seeing unless it fits your belief system --- the hallmark of anti-intellectual mind.
5 Years Ago
I’m not arguing the Bible with scientific proof. I’m arguing against scientific “proof” that.. read moreI’m not arguing the Bible with scientific proof. I’m arguing against scientific “proof” that the Bible is false.
Again. No reason for those who do not believe what I believe to have the kind of faith in what I have faith in.
I understand it is CRAZY to believe the things Christians believe. Virgins don’t just have babies and people don’t rise from the dead! It is either a large fault in humanities ability to reason, or big proof that something is providing this thing we call “faith”.
5 Years Ago
Again... if you are saying you literally believe in those things, by default, you are arguing agains.. read moreAgain... if you are saying you literally believe in those things, by default, you are arguing against established scientific theory with only the bible to back you up. I'm surprised you can't see your own internal contradictions. (sigh)
You also suffer from a fallacy called the "appeal to faith". i.e. - "X is true (premise); if you had faith you'd see that (invalid conclusion)."
Even though reason clearly and throughly refutes your position, you still hold to it because that's probably just how you were raised. You are trapped in dogma. Imagine if you grew up somewhere else, like, Ramadi Iraq... do you think you would still come to the same conclusions?
There's a christian philosopher named Alvin Plantinga I think you should look into; especially a book called "where the conflict really lies". You can certainly believe in whatever you want without being illogical or contradictory about it... right now, you are trying to argue belief has precedance over established scientific theory for no logical reason. Your position is inherently weak for that reason.
5 Years Ago
-There is no logical reason for a person to argue belief has precedance over established scientific .. read more-There is no logical reason for a person to argue belief has precedance over established scientific theory. -
•This is actually my dads position.
-Christianity and the Bible can be proved logically, scientifically, historically, and philosophically-
•This is my sisters position.
Both are some of the strongest Christians I know. I’ve fried my brain listening to their arguments and Ravi Zacharias already did enough of that.
Your point about growing up in another place doesn’t hold because I can tell you a story about a women from the Middle East who had a dream, became a Christian, and after a lot of tragic consequences ended up in a church in southern TN without any family behind her.
I don’t think you understand my intentions. I am not trying to prove Christianity to you. I am not trying to prove my belief has precedence over science. I AM NOT SMART ENOUGH! What I can do, is point out the hypocritical nature of the scientific community as I come across it.
Like I always have, I will continue to research and grow my knowledge till I die, but I don’t believe I have to know all that stuff to figure out myself or my place in this world. Thank goodness because I’m really not the brightest person.
I don’t have to know enough, reason enough, do enough good things. I don’t have to BE enough, because I have someone who is enough for me. Yet I will still strive to be the best me that I’ve been created to be. I wish I could explain how I know this through logical facts, but I can’t. Doesn’t mean no one can. It means I can’t at this point in my life. I know that makes me sound stupid and nieve, but I’ve been called that too much throughout my life to be surprised or phased by it.
5 Years Ago
You can pretend you're not trying to prove religion to me all you want... but when you say things li.. read moreYou can pretend you're not trying to prove religion to me all you want... but when you say things like belief has precedence over reasoned science it's pretty clear you don't actually understand what you're trying to say. You're incapable of seeing the forest through the trees... trying to explain this to you has been like bashing my head against the wall. You can't even see your own contradictions a paragraph apart. Ugh... I have nothing further to say to you. Have a nice night.
5 Years Ago
When you make a post about Hypocriticy and manipulation and the other person turns it into a religio.. read moreWhen you make a post about Hypocriticy and manipulation and the other person turns it into a religion verses science argument 🙄
5 Years Ago
You're the one who started the whole "they don't know how old the earth is" crap with a weak logical.. read moreYou're the one who started the whole "they don't know how old the earth is" crap with a weak logical argument and a poor grasp of the facts. The direction this thread took is entirely on you. Maybe, I don't know, have a reasoned argument behind the things you say instead of just saying... "because faith" That might help you sound less foolish in the future.
Literally the only argument I gave was that they haven’t proven their dating methods through real-.. read moreLiterally the only argument I gave was that they haven’t proven their dating methods through real-time experimentation, and I stated that to prove their hypocrisy. The rest WAS me explaining faith.
5 Years Ago
You 'literally' said that science books lie specifically to disprove the bible... in your very first.. read moreYou 'literally' said that science books lie specifically to disprove the bible... in your very first post. Are you trying to be manipulative now or did you just forget what you already said then and always think you're in the right as a default mode? Either way, it's not very intellectually honest. The reason I have less respect for you now has nothing to do with your beliefs. Can we be done now?
5 Years Ago
The scientific COMMUNITY not science!!! Yea night.
![[send message]](https://www.writerscafe.org/images/mail.png){kind=small}
![[befriend]](https://www.writerscafe.org/images/friend.png){kind=small}
Share This
Email
Facebook
Twitter
Read Request
My Library
Flag Writing
