Does Science Debunk The Bible?

[Data]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

[TRANSPONDER]

Is there anything other than the failed metaphysical experiment of theoretical Darwinian evolution that anyone out there might propose to debunk the Bible. Anyone out there not an ideologue? Physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, oceanography, meteorology, archaeology, anthropology, economics, psychology, or sociology?

You are not doing yourself much good by sounding lkike a rant in capitals from Truth Social. Failed experiment?
All evolution -theory is, is a theory of how life -forms evolved based on Data, Data, and as the Cetan sequence shows, speciation is supported by the most complete fossil sequence you could ask, plus modern skeletal morphology and DNA. Once validated, all proved.

You have no case, nothing but denial and wriggling. The Bible fails in Genesis on Cosmological and palaeontological grounds. The Ark and Flood fails on Geological grounds and practical - even if the critters survived, there was nothing to eat but mud - and the Bible fails on sociology, too - not because it doesn't or didn't work after a fashion, but it isn't up to what was devised later. Ok, it calls for extremes that no Christian follows today, but impractability fails.

It does you no good to rummage around for disciplines that do not undermine the Bible. It fails on the points where it contradicts science - and history, if one calls history a science. Your post was more terrible apologetics, denial of the debunk done, you go for evasion. Science has debunked the Bible, it doesn't help you to go a rabbit -hunt for any science it doesn't contradict.

I'm not trying to put you down but just to make you see that these ducking and diving type of apologetics don't make you look good, because we (or I) have seen it all before.

Still not good apologetics, Data old chum.

To me it's an insult to apologetics to call what any of us here do, including myself, apologetics. We should apologize to apologetics. I don't quite understand how you propose to have the merit to judge anyone else harshly in that respect. I certainly wouldn't. The Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum is where that takes place and you aren't any more likely to see me there than the Science and Religion forum.

A synonym for Faith? Belief, Trust?

Correct. In the context of faith as "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof" I would say both apply. In science there is only trust; not belief. Faith in the context of science is trust, not belief. I trust science or the methodology it uses as much as I trust people. Which, admittedly, isn't saying much. I trust science more than I trust theology. Which, again, admittedly isn't saying much. That probably wouldn't hold water with a pedantic ideologue of atheism but I'm not particularly concerned about that. The point is, I trust Jehovah God more than myself. I trust his creation more than the observation and investigation of that creation. Thus, more than theology or science respectively.

The difference is not in the reliance we put into anything, but the rationale for inventing that trust.

What difference? Between faith and belief or trust? I would agree that rationale dictates reliance, not vice versa. I point out the subtle differences above in an anecdotal personal preference.

Christianity being an accurate knowledge of the teaching of Christ ...well I might dispute that, like Jesus taught us that Sabbath worship counts less than going out to brunch with your friends, but Christianity makes a fetish of Sabbath worship even if they changed the day.

Don't mistake my examination of Christianity as support or agreement with its current state. Christian tradition, especially since Constantine the Great. I reject it due to what it has become, accept it for what it was. As my example of hell and the immortal soul indicates. You reaffirm my point. I have the knowledge to reject Christianity on the basis of four scriptures but most atheists I have dealt with don't. They don't need it, though. They don't need the degree of knowledge I have in order to come to the right conclusion on Christianity. First of all because the conclusion of right or wrong is subjective, i.e. right or wrong for each individual doesn't constitute accurate knowledge. Your poorly constructed argument on the Sabbath is purely anecdotal but comes to the accurate conclusion. That doesn't mean Christianity is necessarily wrong for the intent and purpose of each individual. Your estimation comes to the correct conclusion using very little knowledge very little of which is accurate, but, the majority of Christians, who possess an equal degree of accurate knowledge, don't care anymore than you about accurate knowledge.

In other words, the OP didn't intend to establish nor call for a "debate" on Creation vs Evolution. I consider that debate to be stupid. Pointless and silly. Like most debates political or religious.

But even if they really followed the poverty -stricken teachings of the Gospels (and never mind the prosperity gospel) that would mean nothing when we ask whether there is any good reason to believe the Bible in the first place.

That would depend on the individual, though, again, not the intent or purpose of the OP.

But your attempt to wangle a draw out of the evidence for evolution defies the deductive process. It is in effect denial not just of science but of Logic and the deductive process we rely on for everything.

I don't trust your deductive process, logic or science much. But I think they are only misused tools in your arsenal to justify your ideology. I do wish you would produce a better argument. From my perspective it is perfectly rational for you to deny my theology, my religion, if you will, and still produce a compelling argument. I would never argue that you are in denial of the Bible as if that were some dogmatic conformities you must adhere religiously - zealously - to or be labeled anything other an ideologue.

Terrible apologetics Data, Chum, terrible.

[Data Chuckles. Yawns. Realizes he has referred to himself in the third person; at first, he is embarrassed and ashamed then it slowly, as is often the case with such things, begins to dawn on him what a useful tool illeism might be in disarming his, er, Data's objective to examine the allegedly skeptical for his own curious observation. Like egotism or insanity. Yeah. He thinks to himself, careful not to allow the tool to become reality. Again. That was a crazy ride in the dark days. Lost in "thought" Data forgets that he had chuckled earlier and so does it again. And yawns. He begins to hum a tune to himself, mistakenly thinking that Transponder has gone off on one of his sermons to the choir. The tune is the Bloodhound Gang's Along Comes Mary.][1]



[HEY! IDIOT! A voice screamed at Data. WAKE UP! What?! Precious. Golem, he thinks. To himself. Data. That is. Idiot. Not Data.]

Sorry, Don't recall your evidence on the most controversial passages on the Bible.

What?! Oh. Matthew, uh, 27:52-53.

But you are still trying to wangle a draw by saying microevolution disagrees with the Bible.

No. I never said that. I said it does agree. You know how when you make a post you can't effectively edit it? Because you read it how you think you wrote it. You have to wait a while. It's like that with ideology. You always think I say what you think I say instead of what I say. Even if what I say is meant to make sense that you could understand. When the JWs used to go off to Pioneer school one of the first things they would do is set them down and make them write down some Bible passage they had memorized the way they remember it and then compare that to what the Bible actually says. Usually much to their surprise. That's why I never intentionally memorize scripture. I use the Bible more like a telephone book or dictionary.

So, I've gotten used to the fact that militant fundamentalist atheists may only get as much as 10% of what I actually say. It's the ideology I'm always on about. That's the meaning of my silly and apparently useless literary device above. That and my own entertainment to keep me from doing the logical thing and putting my ego away. Walking away from the art of debate. For good this time! Huh?

In a time and forum far, far, far away - The Skeptic's Annotated Bible forum - there was once one who was on the Dark Side. Very strong was the Ideology in this one. I posted for about six years with this idiot who hung upon my every word but never heard one of them. Most people there knew and loathed my constant reminders of the pagan influence in Christianity. You know, the immortal soul from Socrates, trinity from Plato, Cross from Tammuz and Constantine, hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas from Saturnalia and Dickens, Easter from Astarte, the Rapture from Darby. Then one day, for some reason, though no reason that I could see, his eyes were suddenly opened and he dramatically announced to the public forum that I admitted that Christianity was pagan! Someone, an unusually reasonable atheist not particularly given to ideology responded. Yeah. So? He's been doing that for years. Or something to that effect. Buster GG . . .

[Stares off into the distant forgotten void of illusions]

Lot to read, huh? What a waste of time. It's a good thing I still have complaining about it to while away the time.

It doesn't any more than speciation really disagrees with 'kinds', but Macro ( I actually saw the terms adapted as a handy differentiation of minor and major evolutionary changes - in fact, speciation) does because it says bioforms evolved over millions of years from simple forms to the diversity we have today and - if true, and on the evidence, it is - it debunks the Bible that says it was all done in 6 days, all in one go and in the wrong order, too. Genesis assumes (a reasonable uninformed guess) that greenery appeared before critters, but the evidence is that the Cambrian explosion happened before there was any vegetation on land. Why, we didn't get grass and flowers till around the Jurassic.

Just the Genesis, but 'clean hands' as the Law courts say - you find a witness telling lies about one thing, he is less credible on his other stories.

The Bible doesn't say 6 days. More accurately it doesn't mean 6 days the way you think. Not that that makes much difference. Just that your conclusions are always drawn from an erroneous premise. But that doesn't matter. It's just ideology.

[1] Along Comes Mary

Every time I think that I'm
The only one who's lonely someone calls on me
And every now and then I spend
My time at rhyme and verse and curse those faults in me
And then along comes Mary
Mary, Mary
Then along comes Mary
Mary, Mary
And does she wanna give me kicks
And be my steady chick and give me pick of memories?
Or maybe rather gather tales from all the
Fails and tribulations no one ever sees?
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
Sweet as the punch
When vague desire is the fire in the eyes of chicks
Whose sickness is the games they play
And when the masquerade is played and neighbor folks
Make jokes as who is most to blame today
And then along comes Mary
Mary, Mary
Then along comes Mary
Mary, Mary
And does she wanna set them free
And let them see reality from where she got her name?
And will they struggle much when told that such
A tender touch of hers will make them not the same?
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
Sweet as the punch
And when the morning of the warning's passed
The gassed and flaccid kids are flung across the stars
The psychodramas and the traumas gone
The songs are left unsung and hung upon the scars
And then along comes Mary
Mary, Mary
Then along comes Mary
Mary, Mary
And does she wanna see the stains the dead remains
Of all the pains she left the night before?
Or will their wakin' eyes reflect the lies
And make them realize their urgent cry for sight no more?
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
Sweet as the punch
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
When we met I was sure out to lunch
Now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch
Sweet as the punch

First, sorry, I meant to say that microevolution does not disagree with the Bible, but Macro does, which should have been clear what I was saying.

Yes the Bible does say 6 days, evening and morning a day.I'm looking at my Bible right now. If it isn't 6 days, what is it and where does the Bible say so?

For the rest it is so much garbage. You seriously think that the deductive process that validated the Cetan sequence (actually it it is clear to eye at a glance, or one video) is just my opinion? It is a whole body of data and to dismiss something used in everything from crime solving to scientific discovery shows that you are just being denialist as I do not believe that you don't understand and accept how deductive analysis works and how valid and useful it is.

In fact I think you must realise that you only reject it where it debunks the Bible or, rather, your opinions. I am hardly interested in your opinion on the semantics of Faith. They simply amount to dismissing the evidence that make mundane belief based on valid data and religious or cult -belief based on almost none. We call that Faith. Nor do I care about your personal relationship with the Bible. I only argue that what is in the Bible is not to be trusted.

Finally, - and this is a personal view - anyone who tries to make an argument by throwing a pop song at me, gains nothing but a lower rung of credibility in my view.. For 2 pins I'd throw Delius' Mass of Life' back at you, but I don't want to try everyone's patience.

[alexxcJRO]

I repeat

I almost never put people on ignore. I think everyone should have a voice to be listened to. On this forum, for whatever reason, my patience in that regard is rapidly diminishing. Repeat it one more time and you will join the other Wise guy on that list.

Please do it. Save me the time.

Or answer the stupid question.

The king of obfuscation whines about people not answering the question when he keeps changing the q.
First it was
"Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?"
then
" In the case of evolution, though it could be any branch of science, how does it debunk the Bible ...?"
then
"Where in the Bible does microevolution allegedly contradict the Bible and why do you think it does?"

Before I answer the new q tell me where does micro-evolution stops and macro-evolution starts so I can answer it.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Data in post #1]

I do not have time to do this but I could not let this go.

Difflugia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:45 am
The power of the various types of phylogenetic analyses is that evolution is by far the most plausible explanation for the consistent patterns we see across multiple methods that should otherwise be unrelated. You can't accuarately claim that the results of that analysis (and presumably now molecular analyses) are "just bones." In comparison, "according to their kinds" doesn't accurately describe evolutionary relationships unless it's understood as the loosest sort of allegory. Is that your argument? That "according to their kinds" is such loose allegory that it's meaningless? Otherwise, it's still you that's simply dismissing the power of scientific evidence with nothing but your assertion that it's meaningless. Remember, it's your argument that we can't do better than "according to their kinds."

What we see in the genome is a decrease in the functionallity of living things as it adapts to a new environment. If there is an overal lost of functionality that means the living thing had to have a point of maxium function. The point of maxium function would be the kind spoken of in the Bible.

[Data]

You are not doing yourself sounding lkike a rant in capitals from truth Social.

Is that English?

Failed experiment?

Yes. David Berlinkski. I thought it was from Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed but doing a quick search for it in that on the YouTubes produced no results, but I'm sure it was something Berlinski said. And no, I'm not going to debate the film. Or Berlinkski.

All evolution -theory is, is a theory of how life -forms evolved based on Data, Data, and as the Cetan sequence shows, speciation is supported by the most complete fossil sequence you could ask, plus modern skeletal morphology and DNA. Once validated, all proved.

You have no case, nothing but denial and wriggling. The Bible fails in Genesis on Cosmological and palaeontological grounds. The Ark and Flood fails on Geological grounds and practical - even if the critters survived, there was nothing to eat but mud - and the Bible fails on sociology, too - not because it doesn't or didn't work after a fashion, but it isn't up to what was devised later. Ok, it calls for extremes that no Christian follows today, but impractability fails.

It does you no good to rummage around for disciplines that do not undermine the Bible. It fails on the points where it contradicts science - and history, if one calls history a science. Your post was more terrible apologetics, denial of the debunk done, you go for evasion. Science had debunked the Bible, it doesn't help you to go a rabbit -hunt for any science it doesn't contradict.

I'm not trying to put you down but just to make you see that these ducking and diving type of apologetics don't make you look good, because we (or I) have seen it all before.

What we should have done, long ago, was address the question you yourself proposed in the OP specifically, in the case of evolution, is just examine where they disagree. As I keep trying to get y'all to do. Not to debate science, evolution or the Bible. Just a simple disagreement.

So, the basic idea of evolution, change, fits with what we observe. The Biblical kinds. Naturally, there is some confusion, variation, interpretation etc. which is why for some time I avoided the terms micro and macro. In a basic sense evolution and microevolution are compatible. There's half the argument. Now for macroevolution. But I don't think the strength or interest compels me to do that. I'm bored. Long ago. You gotta be quick and concise with me, my attention wanes.

[Data]

I repeat

I almost never put people on ignore. I think everyone should have a voice to be listened to. On this forum, for whatever reason, my patience in that regard is rapidly diminishing. Repeat it one more time and you will join the other Wise guy on that list.

Please do it. Save me the time.

Or answer the stupid question.

The king of obfuscation whines about people not answering the question when he keeps changing the q.
First it was
"Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?"
then
" In the case of evolution, though it could be any branch of science, how does it debunk the Bible ...?"
then
"Where in the Bible does microevolution allegedly contradict the Bible and why do you think it does?"

Before I answer the new q tell me where does micro-evolution stops and macro-evolution starts so I can answer it.

The question has always been the same. It doesn't matter where they stop and start. First, we have to address the question do they disagree. That isn't necessarily a debunk but I've abandoned that hope for some time. I submit micro and Bible agree. That's half the answer to the question.

You just want to argue about science. I don't. I want to argue about the Bible. You don't.

[Data]

Finally, - and this is a personal view - anyone who tries to make an argument by throwing a pop song at me, gains nothing but a lower rung of credibility in my view.. For 2 pins I'd throw Delius' Mass of Life' back at you, but I don't want to try everyone's patience.

Well, what do you think it was done for?!

Look. If I were paying these guys to come to a scientific consensus on the OP I would have fired you all. And as for your obfuscation, as Golem puts it, your argument - if I were your science teacher, I would have failed you all. I've answered part of the question. It isn't a Bible or Science debate. I'm bored. So, carry on.

[alexxcJRO]

I repeat

I almost never put people on ignore. I think everyone should have a voice to be listened to. On this forum, for whatever reason, my patience in that regard is rapidly diminishing. Repeat it one more time and you will join the other Wise guy on that list.

Please do it. Save me the time.

Or answer the stupid question.

The king of obfuscation whines about people not answering the question when he keeps changing the q.
First it was
"Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?"
then
" In the case of evolution, though it could be any branch of science, how does it debunk the Bible ...?"
then
"Where in the Bible does microevolution allegedly contradict the Bible and why do you think it does?"

Before I answer the new q tell me where does micro-evolution stops and macro-evolution starts so I can answer it.

The question has always been the same. It doesn't matter where they stop and start. First, we have to address the question do they disagree. That isn't necessarily a debunk but I've abandoned that hope for some time. I submit micro and Bible agree. That's half the answer to the question.

You just want to argue about science. I don't. I want to argue about the Bible. You don't.

1.
You asked "Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?"
Then you say you don't wanna argue about science. Evolution of Life is science.
It's kind of weird because the question implies arguing about science.

2.
It was important where micro stops and macro stops.
Q: If I don't know what do you mean by micro how can I respond?
Q: Where does micro-evolution stops and macro-evolution starts?

3.
Fossils of modern whales are not found before the first land animals fossils in the geological strata.
Therefore it debunks the idea Yahweh created "great whales" and all "water"/aquatic animals before land animals.

"18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
(Genesis 1:18-25)

[Data]

1.
You asked "Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?"
Then you say you don't wanna argue about science. Evolution of Life is science.
It's kind of weird because the question implies arguing about science.

2.
It was important where micro stops and macro stops.
Q: If I don't know what do you mean by micro how can I respond?
Q: Where does micro-evolution stops and macro-evolution starts?

3.
Fossils of modern whales are not found before the first land animals fossils.
Therefore it debunks the idea Yahweh created "great whales" before land animals.

"18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
(Genesis 1:18-25)

I've already addressed this in response to Transponder. Look it up if you like.

If we were arguing whether or not the Bible debunks the existence of extraterrestrial life throughout the universe, specifically UFOs I would say no. I wouldn't have evidence. The Bible doesn't say. In ignorance someone might say that some passages, in Ezekiel, for example, might be relevant, but I would reject that. I don't have to meticulously investigate alleged UFO sightings to come to the conclusion.

God created what in what order isn't relevant to the question of does micro debunk Bible. To me. You can all have that argument until the cows come home. Presumably from jumping over the moon. The argument isn't creation, it's evolution. Sure, there's an argument to be had with all of that, but it isn't relevant to the topic. It may be related to it but not relevant to the conclusion. Occam's Razor. We just want to establish agreement with micro and Bible.

It's pointless for me to argue the complexities of an ever-evolving theory when the Biblical kinds clearly indicate that changes in the beak size of birds don't indicate a conflict. It doesn't matter what you call it. Species, classification, ad infinitum absurdum. If you grow grass, you get grass. A fig tree produces figs. et cetera.

ETA: Oh, I forgot. I also addressed the question of where to draw the line. Reproduction of fertile offspring. Biblically speaking.

Simplify, at least with me. Argue the complexities all you want among yourselves for whatever reason, but I'm not interested in that.

Forgot again. The platypus. Doesn't matter. I'm not a scientist. I don't know or care what kind. If it [edit: mates] a squirrel - no offspring. See my boiling water analogy earlier. If you insist. Probably not, huh? Oh, well. I'll just tell you. People boiled water thousands of years before knowing the scientific principle of whatever that's called. Science isn't the important aspect of that history, the desire to make tea is.

[TRANSPONDER]

You are not doing yourself sounding lkike a rant in capitals from truth Social.

Is that English?

Failed experiment?

Yes. David Berlinkski. I thought it was from Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed but doing a quick search for it in that on the YouTubes produced no results, but I'm sure it was something Berlinski said. And no, I'm not going to debate the film. Or Berlinkski.

All evolution -theory is, is a theory of how life -forms evolved based on Data, Data, and as the Cetan sequence shows, speciation is supported by the most complete fossil sequence you could ask, plus modern skeletal morphology and DNA. Once validated, all proved.

You have no case, nothing but denial and wriggling. The Bible fails in Genesis on Cosmological and palaeontological grounds. The Ark and Flood fails on Geological grounds and practical - even if the critters survived, there was nothing to eat but mud - and the Bible fails on sociology, too - not because it doesn't or didn't work after a fashion, but it isn't up to what was devised later. Ok, it calls for extremes that no Christian follows today, but impractability fails.

It does you no good to rummage around for disciplines that do not undermine the Bible. It fails on the points where it contradicts science - and history, if one calls history a science. Your post was more terrible apologetics, denial of the debunk done, you go for evasion. Science had debunked the Bible, it doesn't help you to go a rabbit -hunt for any science it doesn't contradict.

I'm not trying to put you down but just to make you see that these ducking and diving type of apologetics don't make you look good, because we (or I) have seen it all before.

What we should have done, long ago, was address the question you yourself proposed in the OP specifically, in the case of evolution, is just examine where they disagree. As I keep trying to get y'all to do. Not to debate science, evolution or the Bible. Just a simple disagreement.

So, the basic idea of evolution, change, fits with what we observe. The Biblical kinds. Naturally, there is some confusion, variation, interpretation etc. which is why for some time I avoided the terms micro and macro. In a basic sense evolution and microevolution are compatible. There's half the argument. Now for macroevolution. But I don't think the strength or interest compels me to do that. I'm bored. Long ago. You gotta be quick and concise with me, my attention wanes.

Truth Social is American as i recall, and a source of unhinged rants. And Expelled is not much better. It was a rather typical hatchet job on Evolution and biased and uninformed and not much else. I may post the Thunderfoot vid on that.

The rest is trash sorry. I already said that Biblical kinds reflects superficial observation about the obvious different critters we get. But science does it better. One supposes a whale or dolphin is a fish.It isn't. Species is more valid.

And the Bible says nothing about evolution. Your excuse that you got bored with long explanation is more trash. The cetan sequence - even whale morphology - is done in a para or two. The video was within the attention -span of a seven year old. Your remark is just an excuse for not wanting to hear the explanation. Your paltry excuse just makes you look bad. It makes me feel bad as I know you could do better, but then you'd have to admit that evolution, science and atheism has all the case and Bible, Creationism and you have little or none.

Again obfuscating with irrelevant things.

I have already answer your question in #post 120 of this thread.

No, you haven't. Where in the Bible does microevolution allegedly contradict the Bible and why do you think it does?

Please answer my questions:

No. Stay on topic. Go to the Science Religion forum for a debate on evolution.

Don't you dare play the Moderator. Evolution is smack on topic. Topic is science debunks the Bible. Evolution (and Geology and Palaeontology) debunks Genesis. Querying of the science throws up discussion. Relevant to topic. Don't try that again.

I repeat

I almost never put people on ignore. I think everyone should have a voice to be listened to. On this forum, for whatever reason, my patience in that regard is rapidly diminishing. Repeat it one more time and you will join the other Wise guy on that list.

Please do it. Save me the time.

Or answer the stupid question.

Putting people on ignore is an even worse admission that you lost than being evasive. But it's great - you are doing a great job as a Good Bad example. The funny thing is you may tell yourself that you have somehow won by cutting yourselfofffrom a discussion, but everyone here can see that you decline to respond.

[Data]

Don't you dare play the Moderator. Evolution is smack on topic. Topic is science debunks the Bible. Evolution (and Geology and Palaeontology) debunks Genesis. Querying of the science throws up discussion. Relevant to topic. Don't try that again.