Comments by "Moon Shoes" (@moonshoes11) on "Millions of Mormon crickets invade parts of Nevada" video.

And the age of the universe…six days? And all the planets and stars coming into being, six days? And the earth forming…six days? And day and night coming before the existence of the sun? And donkeys talking? And snakes talking? And man coming from dirt? And women coming from a rib? And zombies walking around? And a man living inside a fish for days?
10
@jonathanjohnson8376 It sounds like you don’t understand what scientific accuracy is. Whether or not it was a time before science, each example I provided is scientifically inaccurate. The claim is that the Bible has incredible scientific accuracy, which is false. Sure, what the Bible has to offer might have been a best effort for the times they were written, but they are not scientifically accurate. The question is, how do you explain to a believer what an unfalsifiable claim is, and why it matters. How do you explain to someone so convinced of their beliefs, they cannot step out of them enough to check the math, so to speak?
7
@jonathanjohnson8376 A day is a period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time, reckoned from one midnight to the next, corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis. During those times, a day was still the same measurement, even if not as clearly defined. We refer to a day only on planet earth, since we do not inhabit other planets. Look how absurd you have to be to try to make the Bible seem accurate. What planet do the stories in the Bible take place? Is Jesus an alien? When you ask for answers to all of my questions, be specific. Do you want me to answer whether donkeys and snakes can speak? Do you want me to explain all of science to you in the comments here? Science is our most reliable method for measuring reality. I’d defer to the evidence science has in comparison with the bogus claims made in the Bible, and the Bible will lose every time. But claiming the Bible is accurate when referring to how long it took for the earth to form, and whether the earth was formed before the sun, just means you’re not even qualified to have this discussion. You’ve allowed your religion to impair your ability to reason, it would seem. Now, you may get some value from your religious beliefs. That’s your own set of problems to cope with. Just don’t pretend that it’s anything more than a feel good story, and don’t try to claim offers anything in terms of scientific accuracy.
5
@700K-pp9wm Sure, metaphorical. But not scientifically accurate. Or true.
4
@jonathanjohnson8376 How can there be a day with no sun, and the concept of a day is based on the movement of the sun? Remember, those terms were used by the people who wrote the book, not by the magical sky daddy you imagine exists. There is no other reference of the concept of a day offered anywhere else in the text. A rattle snake making a noise with it’s tale isn’t speaking. Sure, it can use it as a warning, but could it explain the concept of a forbidden fruit to a human? If you were only educated enough to understand the difference between proof and evidence, I might not have to explain science to you. Yes, there is evidence, or “proof” as you’d call it…that these processes take longer than six days. An exact number isn’t required so long as the evidence shows it was more than six days. But yes, we do have evidence for those processes. Sad you aren’t already aware of this…and that you need all of science explained to you. And how sad it is you think someone had to be there. Lol…who was there to write down that it took six days. A detective doesn’t have to be there to witness a murder to determine who the murderer was. This is very sad you’d let your religion impair your ability to reason and think critically. Are you eight years old? Too much Ken Hamm in your life, no doubt.
3
Then we’d have an over population of lizards, snakes, spiders, and birds. Lol.
2
@jonathanjohnson8376 And for goodness sakes, you’re old enough to understand the scientific theory of evolution. So go learn it, and not from an apologist.
2
@jonathanjohnson8376 Besides, I wouldn’t need to know the exact answer when we can simply know it was more than six. And nowhere in the Bible does it suggest six days meant anything other than six days, and six days here on earth. You’d need to full clothe fabricate any other assertion, which the Bible doesn’t support in any way. Lol
2
@Your_friendly_racist_neighbor . 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. You couldn’t look it up? Google is your friend.
2
@MyOpinionIsFacts The Bible is easy to discredit, based on facts. Claims for a magical sky daddy being the cause of anything isn’t a correct answer. So yeah, if there is something science doesn’t have an answer to… That doesn’t make your imaginary friend a correct answer. On the other hand, we can build models based on what we know and show actually exists. Your answers are based on myth and legend, and your “answers” are fiction, not fact. Kindergarten philosophy.
2
@imamerican3720 Sure, when BigFoot shows up, that is the time to believe BigFoot is real. Same goes for Unicorns, Pixies, and Leprechauns. Right? Until then…
2
@1nsanity1234 You can respect terrible ideologies if you want to. Respect my position of not respecting terrible ideologies. And besides, this is about the claim regained “incredible scientific accuracy”. Are you telling me you respect blatant lies? Does you also respect slavery? Do you also respect drowning babies? Do better, atheist.
1
@shakeyj4523 I like when they say “how do you know, were you there?” …as if they were there when the earth was being formed. Lol. They should just admit they have no interest in understanding science.
1
@MyOpinionIsFacts I’ll play along, if you can be honest. Can you? First, if time doesn’t exist, there is no concept of “before stars and galaxies”. So, you’re going to need to catch up on terminology. You can’t have it both ways. No, a day cannot be any time amount of hours “depending on how you count”. Nor would that correct the errors within the Bible narrative. Nothing in the Bible suggests “days” mean anything other than what we consider a day. I can happily pass along a scientific answer to your question about what there was before stars, galaxies, and the world, etc….if you can be more specific. Are you referring to before the Big Bang, or the period of time in between the Big Bang and when stars and galaxies formed? If you sincerely want a scientific answer to this, you should look to science for the answer. It sounds to me that you’re just not educated in what science can show based on evidence. And it seems you think..if science doesn’t have an answer you agree with, then your god must exist…? I’m not claiming to have lived endless years. That isn’t required to understand things. Ultimately, the OP claimed the Bible has incredible scientific accuracy. And it does not. Science, however, is our most reliable method for measuring reality. And the Bible is mostly fiction.
1
@imamerican3720 The Bible isn’t a book on teachings of love, and salvation is another myth. Salvation from something that doesn’t exist is a fraudulent claim. Open your mind to the possibility of reality here, and let me explain where you’re positively wrong. If a person in history was named Clark Kent, that wouldn’t mean he was bullet proof of could fly…no matter how many books were written about him. Would you agree? That fact that a rabbi referred to as Jesus likely existed in history doesn’t mean any supernatural claim about this person could be true. History cannot prove supernatural events take place, when they cannot be proven to happen today. When you make assertions about a day of righteous judgement from god, please understand…you’re making a claim that you cannot demonstrate is true. You’re just spouting more fiction. As for a “book of love” please consider…according to the very same doctrine, this god made slavery permissible by his own laws, drowned babies, and created Hell…which is a place of eternal torment, a place where he sends people to suffer eternal torment for temporal crimes. Which is neither just, nor moral, nor loving. You may equate torture with love, but I have a better, more righteous understanding of what love is. Besides, if you’re “choosing” to believe this god exists…you’re doing it wrong. I’m not going to choose to be misinformed. Now, here is a challenge for you. I ask that you seriously consider it. I am not convinced your god exists. None of what you said is convincing. Perhaps I don’t know what would convince me a god exists, though I am willing to believe he exists. However, if a god exists, this god should absolutely know what would convince me. Would you agree? Should your god know what it would take to convince me he exists? Does your god want me to know he exists? The here is what I ask. Pray, and ask him what would convince me. Then, tell me what he says. If he is right, I will be convinced. We both will be convinced. No, keep in mind, this is not a demand. I am simply asking. Now, if he doesn’t want me to be convinced, he will not answer. But also, if he doesn’t exist, he Weill not answer. If he exists, and wants me to be convinced, he will answer. Are you thinking this through? Now… Consider this prediction; why are you already thinking about why this won’t work, instead of asking him? Be honest.
1
@DaveSmith-cp5kj That wasn’t in any way a prediction. Also, women don’t come from ribs. It’s weird you think they do. And if they did, they’d all be male. But thanks for letting us all know you have no understanding of biology. Typical for a believer.
1
@DaveSmith-cp5kj Can we clone species from anything other than bone fragments? Can we clone species from dirt? Lol
1
@DaveSmith-cp5kj How did you calculate creation being more likely than not, when you can’t demonstrate a creator exists, and only exists in the imagination? It’s funny when a believer with no understanding of science suggests science sides with magic. And suggests one thing is more likely than another, when you don’t understand probabilities. Lol. Also, life and matter don’t coincide into a single event. Even by Biblical standards. So not only are you lacking any education of science, you apparently have no idea what the Bible says. Lol. Typical.
1
@DaveSmith-cp5kj Your God claim is not falsifiable, but you’re now arguing science finds it more likely? Hahaha. Total projection, defeating your own argument.
1
@DaveSmith-cp5kj I’m familiar with both of those different scientific models. Neither of which have anything to do with the origin of life. The Big Bang model explains the cosmic background ration which is a result of an expansion of a singularity. This model has nothing to do with the origin of life. Now the scientific theory of evolution is a model of the diversity of life, but not it’s origins. Our best model for the origins of life on earth is abiogenesis, though the model isn’t complete, and may never be. However, these models are all based on hard evidence. Your God model isn’t. All you’ve done here is just re-confirm your complete lack of understanding of science, especially with these models.
1
@DaveSmith-cp5kj Yes, I’m also familiar with biochemistry. Nothing in this field of science points to magic as an explanation. Or a magical sky daddy. You’re embarrassing yourself, child.
1
@DaveSmith-cp5kj I love it when I can get a believer to deny his own God. Lol. You probably don’t even know what agnostic means. lol And no, nobody has to prove so,etching doesn’t exist when the people like you who claim they do exist can never, ever, ever, demonstrate their claims to be true. Now you’ve just revealed your lack of understanding logic, as well as science. Do you believe Big Foot exists just because you can’t demonstrate he doesn’t exist? Do you believe unicorns exist just because you can’t demonstrate they don’t? Do you believe I have a dragon in my garage because you can’t prove I don’t?
1
@DaveSmith-cp5kj All you’ve done is demonstrate you have no accurate understanding of science or logic. You didn’t say before you don’t believe in God, you said you were agnostic. Agnostic refers to knowledge, not belief. One can believe a god exists but be honest enough to admit they don’t know. This would be an agnostic theist. One could not believe a god exists, but be honest enough to admit they don’t know. This would be an agnostic atheist. But you don’t even understand the difference. You’re not unbiased, and you’re not rational, or logical. So yeah, you’re unlike me. You’re just not smart enough to understand any of these topics.
1
@DaveSmith-cp5kj Nobody is asserting an expansion without an origin. Is that what you think the Big Bang model suggests? Way to go little man, you’re still demonstrating a complete,lack,of understanding. As well as a dishonest approach. No, evolution is about the diversity of life, not the origin of life. So, again…you’re ignorant on the subject.
1
@DaveSmith-cp5kj Charles Darwin made the concept of evolution popular. That doesn’t change the fact that evolution is about the diversity, not the origins of life. Lol, and yes…I mention abiogenesis, which is about the origins of life on earth. And you claim it contradicts one of the challenges (that you couldn’t address) but you never say which. You must be so flustered now, because it’s showing through. And yeah, I will mock you for denying the God belief you’re trying to defend.
1
@DaveSmith-cp5kj How many times do you need it explained to you what the term agnostic means? Lol. Come on, believer. Do better.
1
@DaveSmith-cp5kj Are all your friends made of straw, Davey?
1
Why not go learn what science actually says?
1