Re: First Synthetic Life Created in a Lab
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
>You seem to be distant from the normal world Randy and sunken into some kind of computer virtual world. If I take any book, say for example a book on genetics, and I wish to learn from that book, then I would have to read that book properly. I have seen people pick up a book, read a few lines, put it down, pick it up the next day but have forgotten what they had previously read. Some people get lots of distractions. With ANY book, a person who reads it properly will learn more about its contents.
> >>> Goodvibes:
> >>> If anyone else understands this, please send me a
> >>> translation. In English please.
> >> Randy C:
> >> I'm pretty sure that you get it, but:
> >> YOU describe yourself as an atheist. Yet everything you say,
> >> every argument you make and every topic you raise support
> >> Biblical creationism.
> >> Your comment about "reading the Bible properly" was the
> >> clincher for me.
> > Goodvibes:
> > So what you are saying is, everyone who reads the bible
> > properly from beginning to end is a creationist? you are
> > definitely off your rocker.
> Randy C:
> The point is that there is NO single "proper" reading of
> the Bible! That's because the Bible is written by many human
> authors over many centuries and contains numerous
> contradictions, inconsistencies and failed prophecies.
> Some authors say something that is directly contradicted
> somewhere else by another author.
> What is the "proper" reading of these two lines:
> "The best color is blue. The best color is red."
> Those two sentences contradict each other. There can be
> NO "proper" reading. It is just as "proper" to say that
> the best color is blue as it is to say that the best color
> is red.
> It is not possible to have a single "proper" reading when
> there are so many contradictions.
> So ONLY people who [falsely] believe that the Bible is
> inerrant would claim that there even is a single "proper"
> All people who believe that the Bible is inerrant are
> YOU said that there is a "proper" reading of the Bible.
> Therefore YOU are a creationist.
You also blabber on about inconsistencies and contradictions etc, but how many have you really come across. In 66 combined books, how many have you seen? I doubt if you even found one. What you have more likely done is googled bible errors and looked through a list.
Let me remind you of something important here to keep things in balance, science has made far more errors in history than the bible contains. Yet, you never mention these do you, I wonder why?
- --- In email@example.com, "goodvibrations99" <spamaccountin@...> wrote:
>No. Apparently it claims you do. According to some of my 'Christian friends'. I wouldn't know - perhaps they are wrong.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Alan" <kaptainkobold@> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "goodvibrations99" <spamaccountin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > Because I don't believe I received a spirit to help me through it? Did you receive this spirit when you read it? what did it feel like?
> > >
> > I never claimed that I've read it properly. You did.
> but you claim i need holy spirit to read it properly?
Expanding on this:
When GoodVibes first posted here he admitted that he didn't know much about science, and was looking forward to being educated by the other members here. he has also gone on to state that he has read the Bible 'properly', and that he is more aware of what it actually says than the rest of us. I'm paraphrasing here, but I think the gist of things is about right.
And yet he seems intent on making pronoucements about science, despite claiming to not know anything about it, whilst avoiding discussion of a subject about which he has apparently made a thorough study.
Why would someone do that?