I'll just keep holding on to the book that I've got that hasn't changed, and still holds true.
How exactly do you know the bible still holds true?
It seems to have gotten quite a few things wrong.
Notably, the earth is a lot older than 6000 years, and it was created in more than 7 days.
its almost like, the bible is a human creation.
In fact, this is proved by the gospels.
If the transliteration was true and the bible was literally the word of god directly, we wouldn't need 4 different versions from which to draw our own conclusions. There would be one unambiguous version.
And furthermore, you probably aren't reading it in original church latin. You would be shocked how much can change during translation.
For example, Yeshua would be more accurately translated from the original as Joshua rather than Jesus if we go straight from the original source to modern english. What else might have changed its meaning in subtle yet deeply reaching ways since christ walked the earth?
It most certainly doesn't go both ways, as I'm not making a baseless claim I'm working directly from your demonstrating repeatedly that you don't understand science.
Where have I demonstrated a lack of understanding of the bible?
You even directly claimed that you didn't know anything about science and backed it up by detailing how the only science education you received was K-12 with a Creative/Art focused university experience.
Turns out it was a monkey skull someone put in the ground as a joke and the "experts" didn't realize they had the wool pulled over their eyes.
You are confusing several different things.
Lucy is real, you are referring to a competing hoax around the same time.
And its the same science that confirmed lucy that proved the other one to be a hoax.
To know it was a hoax they used radiological dating to show it could not possible be as old as the hoaxer was claiming.
Humans are fallible and prone to error.
Yes this is why the scientific method is so robust. It allows other people to check for mistakes and doesn't require any faith.
If you treat science as "god" and scientists as "priests"
No one does this. You don't understand what science is if you think this is how it works.
Was referencing the bible
Yes, you were referencing the exact line I quoted from the bible in the comment you replied to.
"judge not lest ye be judged".
I said that to you, you turned around and said it back to me.
that you don't know about.
Why do you keep insisting I don't know about the bible?
This is literally the judgement I was calling you out on.
you should read it before trying to tell people that it's "debunked".
Perhaps you should do the same with radiological dating and the scientific method?
You seem rather mad and confused.
Even the pope recognizes the compatibility of the bible and the standard scientific explanation of how the universe came to be.
to boot, you understand that young earth creationism was gone for hundreds of years right? It only recently reemerged in the US, and basically only in the US.
You can't put a show together without knowing anything about science.
Your words, not mine.
You can't license professionally designed goods without knowing anything about science
Your words, not mine
Get over yourself, yeah? You're getting a bit condescending.
I didn't say any of that shit. Maybe take it easy on yourself?
My point still stands
No it doesn't, and it hasn't.
We all get to choose our own beliefs.
The beauty of science is that it is not faith based.
you can choose to believe what you want, but the truth of the physical world is going to remain the same.
Its not young.
And yes, I don't act like I know about things that I don't.
I'm not acting.
I know these things.
I've taken a rock sample, put it in a mass spectrometer and done the math on the amount of carbon-14 to see how old it is.
This is something you too can do for yourself, and yet you are claiming its impossible and unknowable. Its not.
I know that pretending a rock is 140 million years old is faith
Good thing radiological dating isn't pretending.
Everything I know about science, logic, and reason tells me that.
You have repeatedly demonstrated you don't actually know anything about science.
You literally cited changing text books as a reason why science is wrong.
and I'm calling you out for judging me.
really?
Is that what this is?
The entire new testament isn't even a 1/4 of the bible, so you've essentially not read it.
Cause it looks like you are judging me, and are now back pedalling hard because I called you out on it.
You've got to admit that's a bit disingenuous, no?
Why would I have to admit something that isn't true?
I got up to grade 12, did theater production with light and sound in university, and was heavy into music production after that.
Well that explains why you have such a poor understanding of hard sciences.
but I don't go around acting like an expert on "science".
Because you aren't by your own direct admission above?
I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be here.
The entire new testament isn't even a 1/4 of the bible, so you've essentially not read it.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
How arrogant do you have to be to tell me I haven't read the bible from my one line description?
Have you even read it? This seems like a pretty essential tenant to just miss.
telling me I don't know how science works, because I haven't studied radiological dating
You have clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of science, repeatedly.
I'm just observing it.
You directly admitted you hadn't even looked into radiological dating of your own volition.
Quite a bit.
Selections of the Old Testament, and most of the gospels as well as miscellaneous other verses.
How much science education have you had?
If a great flood happened as the Bible states it did, not to mention nearly every ancient culture having some version of the flood story, carbon dating would not work the way it's stated to.
Why?
Also, we know radio carbon dating works, so that seems to suggest an issue with the person who wrote down the flood myth.
I'm not even going to entertain the idea that a work written down by man is the literal word of god. We wouldn't need the gospels if that were the truth.
The bible is very much a collection written by humans about the word of god. And you are probably reading from an English language bible right? its crazy how much translation can change meaning.
When science can explain the seashell fossils on Mt. Everest
It can. Your satisfaction and acceptance aren't required for it to be the truth.
If you wish to understand how they came to be there, look up plate tectonics and do some research.
You are still making the exact same error the SJWs make.
This is exactly the same argument as "look at how white all the irish government is, this is obviously an indication of systemic racism".
It is no different than saying 13% of the population (blacks) make up 50% of the violent crime stats.
And 5% of the black population commits that 13% of crime, and most of them are men.
Does that make it reasonable to start saying "blacks are the problem"? absolutely not.
doesn't mean I don't know how science works
Your blatant statement that you haven't looked into or studied radiological dating is pretty much a directly admission that you don't know how science works.
Its pretty clear you think you know how it works tho.
And there's no way anybody living today knows whether the earth is 6000 years old, 12000 years old, 120,000,000 years old. It's a matter of faith.
Except you can perform the exact steps others have performed and check to see if it works, no faith required.
Science isn't asking you to blindly accept what you read in a book, in fact you are explicitly encouraged to challenge what you read in the book and see if you can prove it wrong.
Saying things like this really drives home that you don't know how science works.
You read a book that tells you that you can do a test to a rock, and with a certain outcome, that means that rock is millions of years old.
No. I personally have actually looked at mass spectrometer output for rock samples, and done the math to compare the ratios of, for that particular sample, remaining carbon-14.
And you can too.
No faith required.
Your books change every 15-20 years.
Yes exactly, because they keep removing the things that have been found to be wrong.
No faith required.
My book is older, and read around the world, and it has never changed.
That's a pretty good indicator that it contains something incorrect.
You're right, I haven't looked into, or studied
Then how can you expect to understand it?
Do you even know what it is? what the barest principles of its operation are?
You yourself can not verify that a rock is 140 million years old.
Yes I can, and I can even explain how to do it with detailed steps you can check for yourself.
No faith required at all.
To determine if a rock is 140 million years old, the first step is going to be to remove a small sample of the rock and analyze exactly what elements it contains.
You can do this via a mass spectrometer, or through a series of chemical assays.
Once this is done, you can compare the ratio of Uranium-238 to ratio of lead it has decayed into, which provides a very robust system measuring the date of a rock.
Here is a brief overview of the process.
However if you don't wish to go through all that trouble by your lonesome, there is a wonderful process called Peer Review, where other scientists will repeat the work and loudly proclaim bullshit if the answers don't match up.
This is, in fact, why you have the impression that scientists are wrong all the time. They are, and they gladly are, as being wrong is part of the process of advancing science.
Now if you need any help with a particular step above, just ask. All of them are obtainable as an individual especially if you live near a college. Lots of them have things like mass spectrometers or electron microscopes that you can get time on even if you aren't a student.
You seem to have a small error in your base theory of how science works.
As such the impression you have built on top of it doesn't actually resemble science and the real world.
Young earth creationism is very solidly debunked.
You can even go through the steps and prove it to yourself. Science requires nothing on faith.
No?
That's stupid.
You clearly haven't looked into the science of radiological dating if you think its BS.
The reason science works is because it provides instructions for verifying the results yourself. It never asks you to accept on faith.
of there being a definite trend or pattern in behavior within the leftist secular jews.
Then why do I know so many brokeass families of leftisit secular jews?
Its unsurprising that the motivated, unscrupulous actors from within a culture that teaches meritocracy do well. No grand conspiracy required.
They all
There isn't a "they all" that's kinda the point.
You have to qualify it down to Leftist Secular Jews, but even that is including more people than the group you are talking about.
And to make it worse, the group you are talking about also includes christians, black people, Muslims and atheists because the group you are describing having an issue with is the left political elite.
How arrogant do you have to be to think "I know how we will fight the left, by using exactly the same flawed logic"
It doesn't work. Its never worked.
Its why the nazis were wrong,
Its why the KKK was wrong,
Its why the SJWs were wrong,
What possibly makes you think you have stumbled upon the truth by rehashing this same tired terrible logic?
My comments come across in text as sounding mad?
repeat dense posts where you focus on points I haven't made and things I'm not saying does lend itself to the appearance that you are angrily fighting an imaginary enemy.
Feel free to actually read my posts tho.
Instead all you have done is dance about as you call people nazi retards and shills.
Still haven't called anyone a retard, a shill, or a racist.
And in fact, I haven't even used the word nazi until right now.
You must be absolutely placid in a monk like state of tranquility to be making so many basic reading errors.
or could it be that u mad?
Oh sorry, you only called their logic and reason as being that of a retarded nazi shill. That is obviously way different than insulting someone
Yes, it fundamentally is.
The reason you can't separate the two is you have made the idea that I'm criticizing part of your identity.
There's no insult in "Its retarded to say jews are evil" Unless you happen to view "jews are evil" as a fundamental to who you are.
Do you understand the difference between "That's a stupid idea" and "You are stupid" now?
as you call others racists and retards for stating facts.
Nowhere have I called any people racist or a retard.
I've called logic racist and retarded.
Please bother to actually read my post if you are going to complain about me "failing to comprehend".
The truth is, the logic is racists and retarded
Because the "Jews are evil" is the same argument as "white privilege"
Its both bullshit.
What you are actually complaining about is a class divide, elites vs not.
Plebs vs. Bougies.
However, I'd be happy to accept your $1,000,000 offer for the insults I've seen you lay on others.
As soon as you can actually find where I've done that, I'll gladly pay out. I expect a permalink to the comment with the offending section quoted directly.
Feel free to continue on calling people racist retards
I have yet to do this even once.
The fact that you are getting so mad leads me to believe you have a lot of your personal identity tied up in the idea that jews are evil.
Why chose to live that way?
You say that like there's some obvious conclusion to it.
What exactly do you think is going to happen in your fantasy world?
That's a pretty hard thing to imagine considering it's not my position.
My position was very clearly:
Believing jews are evil is just as retarded as believing whites are evil.
It's not supported by reality.
My point with the shill part is:
You would never be on this website and be pro-leftist retardation if you weren't a shill.
You understand conditionals right?
Identify the criminal for what they are and you say they are the victim.
I will paypal you $1,000,000 if you can find where I called any criminals a victim.
Or if you can find where I insulted anyone.
The only thing I've insulted is logic. If this makes you feel attacked, you need to stop trying your self worth up with terrible ideas.
but learn and speak the truth.
Then how can you possibly be blind to all of the jews who aren't part of the evil cabal?
You are making exactly the same cherry picked argument the SJWs are.
It doesn't become correct cause you swapped the ethnicities around, it's still the same retarded logic.
This is exactly the same thing as an SJW saying "well all white people have white privilege".
Jews aren't monolithic. There are poor jews, rich jews, stupid jews, smart jews, hardworking jews, lazy jews, good jews, evil jews.
You obviously understand the left is retarded, or you wouldn't be here (unless you are a shill?) So why would you use the same exact retarded logic they do?
Then why have you failed to demonstrate an awareness of context repeatedly? You even mixed me up with another poster.
That's what this whole thing is about though.
The earth isn't young, and you can verify it yourself.
But you "wont even look into it" in your own words.