Swearing on the Bible

As far as swearing on the bible didn't Jesus say let "your yes be yes and your no be no? Anything beyond that is evil?



Manny

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes science is not what we think is probable, but in many instances that is indeed what it is. Would you like me to substantiate my assertion with the lack of evidence for transitory beings? You may look at any biology text book, and there you have it, assertions based on nothing but postulation, dogma a lack of palaeontological evidence and in som ...[text shortened]... e Fabian, you had best be careful with what you term science, for it may be nothing of the sort.

Let me see.........Robie vs Darwin.........Robie vs Darwin.......... Robie vs Darwin..... I think I will take Darwin. Plenty has been shown to be false in the bible. Very little of "Darwin has been shown to be false.

Originally posted by 667joe
Let me see.........Robie vs Darwin.........Robie vs Darwin.......... Robie vs Darwin..... I think I will take Darwin. Plenty has been shown to be false in the bible. Very little of "Darwin has been shown to be false.

let me see, fact v fiction, fact v postulation, fact v dogma, ill stick with the facts if you dont mind, you Noobs can believe what you want.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
let me see, fact v fiction, fact v postulation, fact v dogma, ill stick with the facts if you dont mind, you Noobs can believe what you want.

The great Robbie Carrobie, you gotta love him. Consistent comedy gold!!!!

Possibly the most deluded man i've ever come across in my life who wasn't taking some form of medication.

Robbie won this thread.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Robbie won this thread.

Robbies a loser, with a capital L

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what's good about posting a misconception, basing your objections to a particular practice on that misconception and then someone tell you that you done great! yeah Karloy Poly, keep them psychic woo woos coming!

I'll keep 'em coming as long as you keep those carrobie-isms coming😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
let me see, fact v fiction, fact v postulation, fact v dogma, ill stick with the facts if you dont mind, you Noobs can believe what you want.

Gotta love the tenacity here. 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
let me see, fact v fiction, fact v postulation, fact v dogma, ill stick with the facts if you dont mind, you Noobs can believe what you want.

Yezz, robbie has become a evolutionist! Hallelujah!

fact v fiction, robbie chosed fact! Evolution vs creationism 1-0
fact v postulation, robbie chosed fact! Evolution vs creationism 2-0
fact v dogma, robbie chosed fact! Evolution vs creationism 3-0

And result is evolution 3 points, creationism zero points!
Thank gods, robbie has become a true evolutionist!
...and noobs can believe whatever they want.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yezz, robbie has become a evolutionist! Hallelujah!

fact v fiction, robbie chosed fact! Evolution vs creationism 1-0
fact v postulation, robbie chosed fact! Evolution vs creationism 2-0
fact v dogma, robbie chosed fact! Evolution vs creationism 3-0

And result is evolution 3 points, creationism zero points!
Thank gods, robbie has become a true evolutionist!
...and noobs can believe whatever they want.

umm sorry to disappoint you Fabs but well, its not just as clear cut as you might imagine 😉

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This fellow Urssher is googable. His chronology can be find at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

586 BC - Destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity
4 BC - Birth of Jesus

..and why is it 4 BC and not year zero? I always thought that BC/AD referred to 'before' and 'after' Christ respectively.. why 4BC then, huh?

Originally posted by Renars
..and why is it 4 BC and not year zero? I always thought that BC/AD referred to 'before' and 'after' Christ respectively.. why 4BC then, huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Science is not about what we think is more probable. You have to back it up with science. If you cannot, it's not science, even if it happens to be true.

Science and religion cannot mix, you know that. If your religious belief is that it can, it's your religious belief, it's not a scientific one

Fab, with all due respect (for we sometimes are on the same side), but you do sound like a broken record with your Science and religion cannot mix statement. yeah, we all know that, get over it.. 😉 you just have to agree to disagree with Robbie..

Originally posted by Renars
Fab, with all due respect (for we sometimes are on the same side), but you do sound like a broken record with your [b]Science and religion cannot mix statement. yeah, we all know that, get over it.. 😉 you just have to agree to disagree with Robbie..[/b]

No, au contraire, there are some people who don't understand that it's impossible to use scientific methods to prove religious things (When will the existance of god be proven scientifically?), and that it's impossible to use religion in scientific research (Pray and the gravitational constant will be changed?), no never.

Especially here in Spiritual Forum I hear often that creation is scientifically proved, and evoluton is not proven. But fundamentalist christians has ver low knowledge of what science is. They often believe that evolution theory is not more than a theory, i.e. a guessing, in their minds. They use science if it 'proves' their view, and rejects it if it contradict their view. And so on, and so on, as can be read and reread int hundreds of threads.

So it deserves to be repeated, time after time, that science and religion cannot ever be mixed. There is a sharp line between the two.

Originally posted by Renars
..and why is it 4 BC and not year zero? I always thought that BC/AD referred to 'before' and 'after' Christ respectively.. why 4BC then, huh?

BC stands for Before the Common Era