[Jerome Jefferson III]

Brothers and sisters:

I would like to focus on the hypocrisy of the atheist scientists for a moment: first we had the atheist Copper Nickus telling us that the earth revolved around the sun.

His suggestion seemed to overthrow the Wisdom of the Ages.

In the 20th Century we learned from the jew Einstein that 'everything is relative,' and atheists believe in this!

How can you have an "absolute truth" (the earth revolves around the sun) and then have everything "be relative?"

Do you know see the contradiction here?

True Christians know that the sun revolves around the earth:

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...18&version=KJV

We know this with certainly because the Bible says it.

So next time you hear an atheist say something about the earth revolving around the sun, say "How do you know?"

to which they will reply "Because science proofs it."

At which point you can point out the fact that they BELIEVE in science....

Science is their religion, and as we can see, it contradicts itself....


Pastor Jerome

[jason123]

open your eyes mormon.

[Jerome Jefferson III]

Dear Jason Voorhees,

You may live in a lake of water now but you be going to a lake of fire.


Why don't you try to argue with reason and logic than with adhominals?

I thought you atheists was smart??

[tryingtobringsense]

How do you know the sun revolves around the Earth?

[bosnianmann]

I agree with above.
There is no scientific proof that this is true, that is younger than 600 years.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Scientific so-called "proof" is always changing. Scientists have rallied behind, then later ran away from all kinds of theories depending on their popularity. Theories like spontaneous generation, the principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). Transmutation of species, Lamarckism, inheritance of acquired characteristics. These are now discarded theories of evolution as Darwin's model of rejecting God was more fashionable to the atheists. Maternal impression supposedly explains birth defects by the mother's thoughts rather than sin. Miasma theory of disease was the popular theory that diseases are caused by "bad air. Recapitulation theory was the theory that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Telegony advocated the foolish idea that offspring can inherit characteristics from a previous mate of its mother's as well as its actual parents. All these things come into fashion until another so-called theory is seen to make a mockery of God even better. Secular scientists then rally around it, all but forgetting the one they had all rallied around just moments before.

[bosnianmann]

Originally Posted by Mary Etheldreda

Scientific so-called "proof" is always changing. Scientists have rallied behind, then later ran away from all kinds of theories depending on their popularity. Theories like spontaneous generation, the principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). Transmutation of species, Lamarckism, inheritance of acquired characteristics. These are now discarded theories of evolution as Darwin's model of rejecting God was more fashionable to the atheists. Maternal impression supposedly explains birth defects by the mother's thoughts rather than sin. Miasma theory of disease was the popular theory that diseases are caused by "bad air. Recapitulation theory was the theory that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Telegony advocated the foolish idea that offspring can inherit characteristics from a previous mate of its mother's as well as its actual parents. All these things come into fashion until another so-called theory is seen to make a mockery of God even better. Secular scientists then rally around it, all but forgetting the one they had all rallied around just moments before.

Scientific proof changes because they found out something else.
Aristotel's theory (on which this is based on), was made in the 4th century AC. His theory was right at the time, for the people, because nobody knew anything else, until 1543., when the theory that the Earth spins around the Sun was found and prooven to be correct.
Now you might say 'well still there is no proof by God', and I'm going to say the following.
By the drawings of Aristotel's theory, the Sun has a perfect circular orbit, which would mean that the Earth would have no seasons.
On the other hand, the Earth has a eliptic orbit, which allows us have seasons like winter and summer.
Explain that...

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by bosnianmann

Scientific proof changes because they found out something else.
Aristotel's theory (on which this is based on), was made in the 4th century AC. His theory was right at the time, for the people, because nobody knew anything else, until 1543., when the theory that the Earth spins around the Sun was found and prooven to be correct.
Now you might say 'well still there is no proof by God', and I'm going to say the following.
By the drawings of Aristotel's theory, the Sun has a perfect circular orbit, which would mean that the Earth would have no seasons.
On the other hand, the Earth has a eliptic orbit, which allows us have seasons like winter and summer.
Explain that...

The LORD appoints the time for man to harvest the crop according to His Higher Purpose:

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted
Ecclesiastes 3:1-2

[tryingtobringsense]

Scientists change their ideas because they were PROVEN wrong.

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by tryingtobringsense

Scientists change their ideas because they were PROVEN wrong.

And when has the Bible been PROVEN wrong?

[bosnianmann]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

And when has the Bible been PROVEN wrong?

It could have been changed to accomidate everything that was possible.
Still, it can be changed to this day so most of the things are possibly not 100% true words.

[Swedishlutheran]

How do you answer to photographic proof of round earth? As a lutherian i know that we cant take bible all literally.

[Jerome Jefferson III]

Originally Posted by bosnianmann

Scientific proof changes because they found out something else.
Aristotel's theory (on which this is based on), was made in the 4th century AC. His theory was right at the time, for the people, because nobody knew anything else, until 1543., when the theory that the Earth spins around the Sun was found and prooven to be correct.
Now you might say 'well still there is no proof by God', and I'm going to say the following.
By the drawings of Aristotel's theory, the Sun has a perfect circular orbit, which would mean that the Earth would have no seasons.
On the other hand, the Earth has a eliptic orbit, which allows us have seasons like winter and summer.
Explain that...

Are you saying the Bible is...WRONG???

What does that say about your and your fate in the afterlife?

[Jerome Jefferson III]

Originally Posted by Swedishlutheran

How do you answer to photographic proof of round earth? As a lutherian i know that we cant take bible all literally.

Who took the photo? How do you know it wasn't photoshopped?

You seem very naive....

[bosnianmann]

Originally Posted by Jerome Jefferson III

Are you saying the Bible is...WRONG???

What does that say about your and your fate in the afterlife?

It says that I do not really care, because I know that nothing will happen to me.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by Swedishlutheran

How do you answer to photographic proof of round earth?

Ever seen a photograph of a coin?

Originally Posted by Swedishlutheran

As a lutherian i know that we cant take bible all literally.

Either the Bible can trusted to say what it means, and mean what it says, or it can't. If it can't be trusted, then why would you trust any of it? You might be trusting the wrong parts. Do you see how Lutheranism will lead you straight to the devil's front door? Don't trust them.

[bosnianmann]

Originally Posted by Jerome Jefferson III

Who took the photo? How do you know it wasn't photoshopped?

You seem very naive....

Explain how there are real pictures of this, before PS then.

[Jerome Jefferson III]

Lutheranism is satanic. Its just Catlick-ism lite is all.

The fact they don't believe the bible is proof that they are insane.

[TheLittleBoy]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

And when has the Bible been PROVEN wrong?

Many times.

1: Bible says our world was created by a sky wizard about 10k years ago ( or 6k years old, depending on what version of the bible you read haha ). Which contradicted by scientific evidence from numerous scientific disciplines that shows the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years, the formation of the Earth was 4.5 billion years ago, and life first appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. There's many proofs that says otherwise, such as : Accumulation of cosmic dust, Saturn's rings, artic ice layers, fossils, galaxies light ( millions of light years away galaxies actually need millions of years for their light to reach us, simple physics) , radiometric dating, old tjikko, and I could go on and on.

2: Noah's ark: How could a flood happen when things such as old tjikko ( a 9.5k years old tree ) still exists? It would have died underwater.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

And I could go on, even the concept of noah's ark doesn't apply to reality.

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15].

Could an ark that size be made seaworthy? No, because look what happened to the Wyoming , with the effect called hogging and sagging caused by waves, it would twist in every direction causing it to leak and eventualy sank.




3: Talking snakes

4: Bible contradictions.

5: Failed biblical prophecies.

6: The earth isn't flat.

7: If a god is real and everything is. What makes you think your interpretation of the bible isn't wrong? What makes you think you are not following the right god and the right one is actuall Odin? As all bibles and mythical deities all have the same amount of '' proofs ''.

8: If god is all loving and peaceful. Why did he kill around 2.5 millions of people according to the bible? Not counting when he annihilated life on earth during the mythical flood? What's funny is that Satan, depicted as the evil one, only killed around 10 people in the bible, which was job's family. And he did it to help god win a bet. hahahaha.

9: Give me one proof that god exists that isn't related to your inner feelings, misconceptions, delusion, holy scriptures that could have been made by some king to control his people ( Since you have no proof that god made it except what it says in the book itself, that's like believing Lord of the ring is real because Frodo wrote it storywise.)

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by TheMan

Many times...

Really? All of your "proofs" rely on believing that science is true in the first place. I'll just use first one as an example:

...1: Bible says our world was created by a sky wizard about 10k years ago ( or 6k years old, depending on what version of the bible you read haha ). Which contradicted by scientific evidence from numerous scientific disciplines that shows the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years...

Ok, now prove that God didn't create the universe 6,014 years ago, with all the evidence that show it's much older already in place (fossils, etc.), in order to deceive people into believing a lie (yes, He does that, according to the Bible) and condemning themselves to everlasting torture.

The rest of your "proofs" can be similarly dismissed.