Discussion in 'Community' started by Jabba-wocky, Aug 1, 2013.
Egyptian god of dope ass beats
That was my thought and I don't even give a crap about "winning," I was more interested in whether or not there are any accredited scientists that espouse the young earth theory and can back it up with non-Bible-based evidence.
These christianity threads never fail to entertain, although the ones with Wormie were solid gold. Lee Strobel and Kirk Cameron owe their careers to that girl, I think she bought every psycho christian apologetics book ever published just so she could argue on a SW message board.
God said, "Let there be light" and the photons streamed forth across the face of the darkness and they were both waves and particles simultaneously and the scientists were greatly astonished at the sophistication and elegance of God's creation.
My point is, for God (who had just created the universe and everything in it and all the laws that govern it) it would be simpler than simple to create light billions of light years from its source an instant after it was created.
This is the second time tonight that I've spit beer at my screen after reading a post here, and the first time involved a mental image of Chewbacca with a keg.
Well played, TF.N, well played.
(ETA: not directed at you, Sarge.)
I believe Morgan Freeman created the Earth
You don't need proof if you believe
So the Bible is immutable then? Despite the fact that there's evidence, even in the text itself, that its been copied and changed over the millennia? Have you heard of apocrypha? The Gnostic gospels?
i dont think you know what "elegance" means, but your acceptance of my suggestion that god is a cosmic troll warms the cockles of my heart
Yup, God's definitely ****ing with us.
No way, it's definitely one of Satan's temptations.
no that's just what god WANTS you to think
Rogue_Ten, what does elegance mean to you?
not needless complication
It's quite interesting for SkywalkerNumbers to talk about people not accepting her faith as proof when she won't accept basic science as evidence.
Religious hypocrisy FTW.
thanks for that valuable contribution, katana. you're a gem
There's no reason she should. This line of discussion started when someone asked about supposed contradictions in the Bible. In answering what was frankly a huge number of them, SkywalkerNumbers correctly noted the lives of Adam and Eve. When pressed further about explaining Adam and Eve's existence relative to the rest of history, she again offered a quite valid Biblical interpretation that resolved the issue without creating contradictions. She then concluded by noting that people who were not Christian probably would not accept these explanations as true.
Where is the big flaw here? I understand perfectly well that you think it would be more reasonable for to be atheist, or at least not to be a creationist. But she never really claimed to "prove" anything other than a lack of contradictions in the passages she was asked about. This was more or less successfully demonstrated, and doesn't require accepting or rejecting scientific evidence to do so.
What happened to this being a discussion within the Bible? Or at least, like, respectful?
Wocky, you are misunderstanding the scope of my post. I am only commenting on her biblical creationism. Don't try to expand my post into any other topic.
Nothing says "respect" like telling other people they're going to hell for not believing in the same book that you do. Just sayin'.
Also, nothing says respect like offering to pray for those who don't believe in said book. "I'll pray for you" is just a passive-aggressive middle finger. It's grown tiresome.
Here's the deal: science says the earth is 4.6 billion years old, religion says it's 6000. Science has evidence, religion does not. Therefore, science wins.
As PRENN said earlier, nothing in the Bible directly says anything about the age of the planet. It's just an interpretation-- from people studying the "begat" chapters or something-- that gained wide acceptance among some Christians. In other words, it's a complete ass-pull. Like the trinity!
Evidence is not proof. So no one has won, yet.
I would also dispute that religion does not have evidence. Creationists look at the evidence and interpret it differently than evolutionists.
Well, generally speaking one satisfies the burden of proof with evidence. Evidence itself falls into different levels of reliability. Most, if not all, of the so called 'evidence' which supports a religious worldview (that, is, the existence of god as creator) falls into the lowest level of reliability (that is, the bible and personal experience), whilst the evidence which supports a non-religious worldview (but doesn't necessarily exclude the existence of god) falls into a higher level of reliability simply because of the methodology which is used to support that evidence.
There may well be a god and everything in the bible may well be true, there is just no objective, reliable evidence which supports that proposition. All science does is offer up an alternative explanation to the religious narrative which is more reliable in terms of methodology. That there is no methodologically reliable evidence for the existence of god is the essence of religious faith.
How else can you interpret the existence of fossils, both of humankind and of dinosaurs, other than how they completely invalidate the biblical story of creation?