What is the evidence for creationism?

[Nathan Poe]

I knew that was coming:

Then why not post a Bible verse which proves something, instead of what which poisons the well?

 

[Beastt]

In view of Matthew 7:14, I'd say your conclusion is faulty.

Have you ever noticed how often you try to use the Bible to back the Bible? That's circular logic and purely without compelling value because no document can do other than say what it says. If I used the novel Peter Pan to back the claims made in the novel Peter Pan then would I be proving children can fly and fairies actually exist?

We're talking about the real world here. If you can't back the Bible utilizing reality, then there is something to be learned from that. That's actually quite the way I became an atheist. The Bible simply doesn't comply with reality.

If it's [we + God] vs them, yes.

In my opinion this is one of the strongest reasons people should turn from religion. All through man's history we've seen armies from practically every country spurred into actions of horrendous killing, maiming, raping, pillaging and torment for the sake of winning for their god. Even the Holy Bible has God prompting men to kidnap and rape virgins, slaughter infants and destroy livestock all for the sake of "God's glory". When people can believe such things, it's no wonder we live in a world of perpetual war, poverty, killing, greed and suffering.

Maybe it's time men begin to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions and stop attempting to pass the responsibility to mythical entities never seen to exist. Until we can do that, we can be assured that we will always be plauged with a continual reign of suffering and blood shed.

So too, you'd think that Allah should be showing his muscle by now, if Islam is right.

Or one could consider the fact that all wars are brought by men, against men and there are no gods involved in a single one. If any god wanted victory of one country over another, there should be not a single soldier lost or harmed to that god's chosen side. Ever hear of such a war, (in reality, not the unconfirmed Bible)? If any god really wanted one country to dominate another, not a single man should ever need lift a single weapon. For no god is said to be without the power to smite men at will.

Only if you look at them through scientific paradigms.

Before making any such comment one should always stop to consider what science is and can always be shown to be -- the study of reality. So your objection here is that I'm comparing the Bible to reality, and finding it not to correlate. And that is completely correct. But in any contest between reality and a book, it matters what reality demonstrates far more than what any book can claim. Until the claims of any book comply with the demonstrations of reality, it is perfectly correct to conclude that the claims of the book are false.

Like I have been saying, I believe He created the things He did, in the order that He did, as a powerful refutation against evolution. He could have easily created the sun first, then the plants; but chose not to --- on purpose.

Even though to make such a proclamation, you have to put words in God's mouth. There are simply errors contained all throughout Genesis which at the time the Bible was written, were not known to be erroneous. Since that time we've learned a great deal and found that plants can't exist on Earth unless Earth has a sun. We've learned that atmospheres are necessary for any planet to capture and retain liquid water. We've learned that the sky is not a solid dome. We've learned that the Earth is not flat and does not sit stationary. We've learned that the sun, moon and stars all sit far, far from our planet and do not reside within the dome once thought to be the top of the sky.

When we place this information -- the reality of our Earth -- against the claims in the Bible, we find the Bible to be sorrowly lacking in factuality. It simply doesn't comply with reality. You can claim God did things backward all you like but since the Bible makes no claims such as those you use to try to justify inverse chronological orders, you're really speaking for yourself and not for the Bible you claim to be defending.

That is so not so. When the events of Revelation start unfolding in the order that they are written in the Bible, they'll be able to compare these events, and even predict the next one, and that will show the Bible to be much more than a book of coincidences.

You're making appeals to things which haven't occurred and have, on the basis of reality, absolutely zero chance of happening, in order to try to defend against my statement. And if Revelation were to unfold as you hope it will, would it not be God directing the event? Therefore, no matter how you wish to look at it, my statement remains correct -- only God would have the ability to provide confirmation for the Bible. And again, as I stated, God has never shown any interest in doing that. No god has ever provided substantiation for a single word of any bible. No god can ever be shown to have done even one single thing.

If you wish to appeal to events you believe will happen in the future as your evidence against my statements, then I'll simply demonstrate to you that I can take the novel Peter Pan and tell you how wrong you're going to be when Peter comes back with Tinkerbell and starts luring children away to Neverland. Does that sound reasonable to you?

You want honesty? If you were left behind in the Rapture, and the events of Revelation started unfolding in the order given in Revelation, what conclusion would you come to about its authorship?

Once again; you simply can't make reasonable appeals to things that haven't happened as evidence for your argument. They haven't happened. That being the case, they make a far better argument against your case than for it. If they ever do happen, then you can use them. Until then, they serve only as additional false claims from the Bible.

That was an interesting paragraph, in light of:
[Bible]2 Peter 3:3-4[/Bible]

When the only way you can find to defend the Bible is by using scripture from the Bible, you should begin to realize that there isn't anything from reality which offers a defense of your position. And I'll say it again; whenever reality demonstrates one thing and a book claims another, the book is wrong. Reality can never be wrong because whatever reality demonstrates is automatically real.

I'd advise you to get the newspaper and hold it up alongside Matthew 24 and judge for yourself if this "fiction" is not really a dormant volcano about to become active.

Okay. Let's take a good look at Matthew 24. What do we find as the signs given? We see buildings which don't last forever, we see claims of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, betrayals, false prophets, a disbelief in Christianity and lightning across the sky.

Now, tell me of a time in confirmed history when these things have not been found upon the Earth. That's why for as long as the Bible has existed, there have been people proclaiming the signs of the end times to be before us. And though they have spouted these warnings for 2,000 years, we've never yet seen what the Bible claims will follow.

When someone owes you money, how long do you accept the promise, "The check is in the mail", before you begin to grow suspicious?

 

[JohnR7]

Have you ever noticed how often you try to use the Bible to back the Bible?

We use the Bible to back up what we are saying so you know that God is saying it and not us.

So, if you want to argue with God, then go right ahead and argue with Him.

I have gotten plenty of people report me for quoting the Bible. Sometimes people are offended by what the Bible says. But I am not the one saying it. If they have a problem then their problem is with the Bible, or whatever author wrote that section of the Bible.

We are allowed to quote the Bible, but we have to use the Bible in the context of what the Bible is saying and who the Bible is saying it to.

Now, tell me of a time in confirmed history when these things have not been found upon the Earth. That's why for as long as the Bible has existed, there have been people proclaiming the signs of the end times to be before us. And though they have spouted these warnings for 2,000 years, we've never yet seen what the Bible claims will follow.

Peter gives you the answer for this. You should thank your "lucky" star that Jesus has not come yet, because God is loving and patient. He does not desire that any should perish, but that all should come to a saving knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3:4
and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."

2 Peter 3:7-9
But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. [8] But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. [9] The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Jesus clearly tells us that He is going to return on the THIRD day.
We still have around 25 years to go to the end of the second day.
Even Moses talks about the third day and the meaning of that for us.

Luke 13:32
And He said to them, "Go, tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.'

 

[Beastt]

We use the Bible to back up what we are saying so you know that God is saying it and not us.

We use the novel "Peter Pan" to back up what we are saying so that you know that Peter is saying it and not us.

Does that help you to see how utterly devoid of logic your statement is? Firstly, I see absolutely no reason to believe that the Bible was written by God. It provides every reason to believe it is nothing more than the writings and beliefs of the men who took it upon themselves to document their own beliefs and then present them as the supposed word of God.

So, if you want to argue with God, then go right ahead and argue with Him.

If God existed I would have no reason to argue with him. My argument is that there is no reason to believe that God exists. And since God has never once proclaimed that he exists, I have only you, who continually proclaim that he does exist, with which to engage in debate. It's your claim that God exists, not God's.

I have gotten plenty of people report me for quoting the Bible. Sometimes people are offended by what the Bible says. But I am not the one saying it. If they have a problem then their problem is with the Bible, or whatever author wrote that section of the Bible.

We all get reported. No matter what gathering of people you find yourself within, some will conduct themselves as adults and do their best to support their stance while others will behave as children on the playground constantly running to the teachers in hopes that they will be provided an unfair advantage through crying and whining about being offended. Personally, I believe if one is offended by beliefs contrary to their own, they should stay away from the debate sections of the forum.

I have no problem with people quoting scripture from the Bible. My only point is that it does nothing to verify, confirm or substantiate what is said in the Bible to continually repeat what is said. If one wishes to demonstrate that something is true, then they must appeal to the only real standard of truth we have. And that isn't the Bible, it's reality. Nothing which fails to align with reality can be considered to be true or real. So if one wishes to support a claim in the Bible, they must do so by demonstrating how it aligns with reality, rather than showing that the Bible says what the Bible says.

Peter gives you the answer for this. You should thank your "lucky" star that Jesus has not come yet, because God is loving and patient. He does not desire that any should perish, but that all should come to a saving knowledge of the truth.

Stars are neither lucky nor unlucky. But, as I see you're using that as a standard figure of speach, I'll simply address the rest of your comment. You can claim that the failure of Jesus to return grants me a reprieve but what you first need to demonstrate is that he will eventually return. And that's something you simply cannot do because reality shows the contrary to be true.

Jesus clearly tells us that He is going to return on the THIRD day.

Correction: The authors of the Bible claimed that Jesus said this. We do not know whether or not this is actually anything ever spoken by Jesus. Before one can have faith in the Bible, one must have absolute faith in the authors of the Bible. As they were only men, and men we cannot know, to blindly accept whatever they present as automatically factual seems inappropriate and foolish. If I offered you a 2,000 year old book which stated that the Earth formed from a cosmic dust-bunny under the guiding hand of an all-knowing space-weasel, would you take the book at its word or would you attempt to compare the evidences of reality against the claims in the book?

As for the scripture; I have no argument that the scripture indeed says what it says. I simply feel that what it says is contrary to the demonstrations of reality and often, demonstrably so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, Beastt, it's our hope and prayer that you see the Light before it's too late. You can go ahead and put your faith in science (sans Scripture), but like I said, when the storms come, that house is gonna fall, and great will be the fall of it. God loves you, and that's a fact.

 

[Nathan Poe]

We use the Bible to back up what we are saying

But the only thing you ever say is "The Bible says it, so it must be true."

so you know that God is saying it and not us.

So, if you want to argue with God, then go right ahead and argue with Him.

The Bible is God?

I have gotten plenty of people report me for quoting the Bible. Sometimes people are offended by what the Bible says.

And sometimes people report you for derailing a topic.

But I am not the one saying it.

God's taken over your CF account?

If they have a problem then their problem is with the Bible, or whatever author wrote that section of the Bible.

Or whatever person insists that such-and-such a verse of the Bible means what they insist it means.

We are allowed to quote the Bible, but we have to use the Bible in the context of what the Bible is saying and who the Bible is saying it to.

And in context of whatever the topic is, and not as an excuse for flaming.

 

[Beastt]

Well, Beastt, it's our hope and prayer that you see the Light before it's too late. You can go ahead and put your faith in science (sans Scripture), but like I said, when the storms come, that house is gonna fall, and great will be the fall of it. God loves you, and that's a fact.

Without science, people always turn to religion because we have a need to understand and a desire to have a degree of control. Before vulcanology became a study people turned to a god to explain the erruption of smoke, ash and magma from a mountain. Given the lack of understanding they held for natural processes, anthropomorphication seemed to offer some potential for both answers and a degree of control. So they attempted to appease the god of the volcano figuring that the god, being much like a human in many ways, would like the same things humans would like. They offered virgins. The volcanos still errupted but it offered them some feeling of understanding and hope for some way to control a situation they didn't understand so the belief persisted.

Earthquakes were not understood any more than were volcanos. So people lacking in the understanding of natural processes again turned to anthropomorphication and created earthquake gods. It gave them a feeling of understanding, some hope of being able to lend a hand in the control of earthquakes and through that, a degree of security.

For every catastrophic natural occurence there became the belief that one god or another was behind the event and attempts were made to appease this god in exchange for the ceasation of further events. When the attempts to appease the gods failed, they determined that it was their offering which failed rather than a failed hypothesis which lead to the belief in a god in the first place.

Even in the cultures affected by the 2004 tsunami, there is the belief that the Earth resides atop a large tree and that when the gods are angry, they cause the tree to sway and bow in the winds. It is, of course, purely unsupportable on scientific grounds but I'm sure they would only suggest, as do many Christians, that science doesn't explain everything or that only when viewed upon a "scientific paradigm", does it not appear valid.

No matter what culture you look to or what natural events are lacking an explanation, there will be gods. And no matter how many continue to cling to those gods after reasonable, demonstrable and scientific explanations are found, the science of the matter will continue to align with reality while the religions and superstitions will continually fail.

So while I appreciate the thoughts you offer in your prayers for my salvation, I must appeal to the dozens and dozens of examples from history, point to the fact that Christianity has its foundations in these same kinds of ancient superstitions about natural processes, and continue to proclaim that reality is the only consistent measure of truth. As the Bible and Christianity don't seem to care about reality, appealing instead to the blindness of faith, I must continue to appeal to reality and the study of reality as the only way to find any measure of truth.

 

[Tenka]

Tenka, what would be the 'smoking gun'?

Telling us that we wouldn't accept any evidence submitted is utterly pointless because threre is nothing to submit.
This is the attitude of people who want to think that unbelievers of creationism disbelieve out of denial rather than reason based on supporting evidence. Evidence that shows that things simply didn't occur the way that genesis describes. A smoking gun should have been found already IMO.
Telling us we wouldn't accept any evidence even if you could produce some is plain insulting.

 

[AV1611VET]

Telling us we wouldn't accept any evidence even if you could produce some is plain insulting.

Then tell me what you think would be acceptable evidence of a planet created ex nihilo?

Yes:

• science sees evolution, we see adaption
• science sees a cosmic microwave background, we see third heaven
• science sees a 13.7 billion-year-old universe, we do too
• science sees 13.7 billion years of history, we see embedded age

But what would be a smoking gun for anything? Be it the earth, or the stars, or a pack of chewing gum?

 

[theFijian]

Then tell me what you think would be acceptable evidence of a planet created ex nihilo?

Yes:
science sees evolution, we see adaption
science sees a cosmic microwave background, we see third heaven
science sees a 13.7 billion-year-old universe, we do too
science sees 13.7 billion years of history, we see embedded age
But what would be a smoking gun for anything? Be it the earth, or the stars, or a pack of chewing gum?

I'm sure all are aware by now that when AV1611 uses the word we he uses it in the most narrow sense possible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sure all are aware by now that when AV1611 uses the word we he uses it in the most narrow sense possible.

What gave it away, Fijian?

• The fact that I'm a Baptist
• The fact that I'm a Fundamental Baptist?

Or the fact that I'm an Independent, Fundamental Baptist?

 

[theFijian]

The fact that dad still has a lot to teach you young padawan.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that dad still has a lot to teach you young padawan.

Well, no disrespect to dad, but I don't subscribe to everything he says, and I'm sure he feels likewise about me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We're talking about the real world here. If you can't back the Bible utilizing reality, then there is something to be learned from that. That's actually quite the way I became an atheist. The Bible simply doesn't comply with reality.

Without God reality is completely without comprehension. There is no reason to assume that reality is anything more than your own perception of it.

In my opinion this is one of the strongest reasons people should turn from religion. All through man's history we've seen armies from practically every country spurred into actions of horrendous killing, maiming, raping, pillaging and torment for the sake of winning for their god. Even the Holy Bible has God prompting men to kidnap and rape virgins, slaughter infants and destroy livestock all for the sake of "God's glory". When people can believe such things, it's no wonder we live in a world of perpetual war, poverty, killing, greed and suffering.

History is ripe with wars that were unrelated to religion. Greed and power have done as much or more to spur actions of horrendous killing, maiming, raping, pillaging and torment..i.e. Joseph Stalin

Maybe it's time men begin to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions and stop attempting to pass the responsibility to mythical entities never seen to exist. Until we can do that, we can be assured that we will always be plauged with a continual reign of suffering and blood shed.

There will always be suffering and blood shed, mankind can always come up with what they consider reasons to kill. It doesn't take religion to spur them on anymore than it does a belief that they are more superior than another; mankind can always come up with reasons to kill others.

Or one could consider the fact that all wars are brought by men, against men and there are no gods involved in a single one. If any god wanted victory of one country over another, there should be not a single soldier lost or harmed to that god's chosen side. Ever hear of such a war, (in reality, not the unconfirmed Bible)? If any god really wanted one country to dominate another, not a single man should ever need lift a single weapon. For no god is said to be without the power to smite men at will.

In your opinion of course, because obviously you have no idea what God should or should not do. It doesn't disprove God just because He doesn't respond in the manner in which you feel He should.

Before making any such comment one should always stop to consider what science is and can always be shown to be -- the study of reality.

You should stop to consider that without the CWV reality is unknowable.

So your objection here is that I'm comparing the Bible to reality, and finding it not to correlate. And that is completely correct. But in any contest between reality and a book, it matters what reality demonstrates far more than what any book can claim. Until the claims of any book comply with the demonstrations of reality, it is perfectly correct to conclude that the claims of the book are false.

The objection here is that without any reason for reality your reality nor mine means nothing. A book (the Bible) or a scientific journal stand equal in value and validity. Without the CWV claims that either are false are based solely on opinion without any validity at all.

Even though to make such a proclamation, you have to put words in God's mouth. There are simply errors contained all throughout Genesis which at the time the Bible was written, were not known to be erroneous.

Again, many of what people call errors are simply misunderstandings of the words or concepts behind the words. At the time Genesis was written it was unknown that the life forms of earth came in stages or eras but Genesis one claims this to be true....long before one fossil was found.

Since that time we've learned a great deal and found that plants can't exist on Earth unless Earth has a sun.

False.

We've learned that atmospheres are necessary for any planet to capture and retain liquid water.

So?

We've learned that the sky is not a solid dome.

I understand the reason behind this statement but the word used in the Bible can mean expanse as well. Which says nothing about a solid dome.

We've learned that the Earth is not flat and does not sit stationary.

The Bible doesn't claim this.

We've learned that the sun, moon and stars all sit far, far from our planet and do not reside within the dome once thought to be the top of the sky.

Your interpretation.

When we place this information -- the reality of our Earth -- against the claims in the Bible, we find the Bible to be sorrowly lacking in factuality. It simply doesn't comply with reality. You can claim God did things backward all you like but since the Bible makes no claims such as those you use to try to justify inverse chronological orders, you're really speaking for yourself and not for the Bible you claim to be defending.

The Genesis order is almost exact to the evidence we have today. Which is pretty amazing for a book you consider uninspired. The writers of Genesis could not have known the way life came about at the time.

You're making appeals to things which haven't occurred and have, on the basis of reality, absolutely zero chance of happening, in order to try to defend against my statement. And if Revelation were to unfold as you hope it will, would it not be God directing the event? Therefore, no matter how you wish to look at it, my statement remains correct -- only God would have the ability to provide confirmation for the Bible. And again, as I stated, God has never shown any interest in doing that. No god has ever provided substantiation for a single word of any bible. No god can ever be shown to have done even one single thing.

Simply false. You deny the Bible and then claim God has not shown any interest in providing evidence. If the CWV is correct then the Bible is correct and you can find it with ease. It remains the most read and bought book in the world.

Once again; you simply can't make reasonable appeals to things that haven't happened as evidence for your argument. They haven't happened. That being the case, they make a far better argument against your case than for it. If they ever do happen, then you can use them. Until then, they serve only as additional false claims from the Bible.

There are plenty of things that have happened that can be proven in the Bible but you out and out refuse or deny the Bible so it is due to your denial that any claims in it to you are false.

Okay. Let's take a good look at Matthew 24. What do we find as the signs given? We see buildings which don't last forever, we see claims of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, betrayals, false prophets, a disbelief in Christianity and lightning across the sky.

Now, tell me of a time in confirmed history when these things have not been found upon the Earth. That's why for as long as the Bible has existed, there have been people proclaiming the signs of the end times to be before us. And though they have spouted these warnings for 2,000 years, we've never yet seen what the Bible claims will follow.

LOL This only confirms the Bible. As shown God says that men will be saying this in the end days. Why, because it hasn't happened yet and men think they know when it should have rather than understanding that it will be in God's time not theirs.

When someone owes you money, how long do you accept the promise, "The check is in the mail", before you begin to grow suspicious?

It is not surprising with the mindset of a non-believer to feel that the promise is not forthcoming but for a Christian we do understand God's timing and although we don't know the day we do know what to look for. God is a God of the literal in many way. In the past many of the details in the last days would have had to happen supernatually to come about. God usually works within the bounds of the natural. Those things that had to be supernaturally provided no longer are necessary; those details are present now.

 

[Beastt]

Well, no disrespect to dad, but I don't subscribe to everything he says, and I'm sure he feels likewise about me.

When was the last time any of us found any two Christians who agreed on everything to do with Christianity? I can't recall it ever happening.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We're talking about the real world here. If you can't back the Bible utilizing reality, then there is something to be learned from that. That's actually quite the way I became an atheist. The Bible simply doesn't comply with reality.

Without God reality is completely without comprehension. There is no reason to assume that reality is anything more than your own perception of it.

In my opinion this is one of the strongest reasons people should turn from religion. All through man's history we've seen armies from practically every country spurred into actions of horrendous killing, maiming, raping, pillaging and torment for the sake of winning for their god. Even the Holy Bible has God prompting men to kidnap and rape virgins, slaughter infants and destroy livestock all for the sake of "God's glory". When people can believe such things, it's no wonder we live in a world of perpetual war, poverty, killing, greed and suffering.

History is ripe with wars that were unrelated to religion. Greed and power have done as much or more to spur actions of horrendous killing, maiming, raping, pillaging and torment..i.e. Joseph Stalin

Maybe it's time men begin to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions and stop attempting to pass the responsibility to mythical entities never seen to exist. Until we can do that, we can be assured that we will always be plauged with a continual reign of suffering and blood shed.

There will always be suffering and blood shed, mankind can always come up with what they consider reasons to kill. It doesn't take religion to spur them on anymore than it does a belief that they are more superior than another; mankind can always come up with reasons to kill others.

Or one could consider the fact that all wars are brought by men, against men and there are no gods involved in a single one. If any god wanted victory of one country over another, there should be not a single soldier lost or harmed to that god's chosen side. Ever hear of such a war, (in reality, not the unconfirmed Bible)? If any god really wanted one country to dominate another, not a single man should ever need lift a single weapon. For no god is said to be without the power to smite men at will.

In your opinion of course, because obviously you have no idea what God should or should not do. It doesn't disprove God just because He doesn't respond in the manner in which you feel He should.

Before making any such comment one should always stop to consider what science is and can always be shown to be -- the study of reality.

You should stop to consider that without the CWV reality is unknowable.

So your objection here is that I'm comparing the Bible to reality, and finding it not to correlate. And that is completely correct. But in any contest between reality and a book, it matters what reality demonstrates far more than what any book can claim. Until the claims of any book comply with the demonstrations of reality, it is perfectly correct to conclude that the claims of the book are false.

The objection here is that without any reason for reality your reality nor mine means nothing. A book (the Bible) or a scientific journal stand equal in value and validity. Without the CWV claims that either are false are based solely on opinion without any validity at all.

Even though to make such a proclamation, you have to put words in God's mouth. There are simply errors contained all throughout Genesis which at the time the Bible was written, were not known to be erroneous.

Again, many of what people call errors are simply misunderstandings of the words or concepts behind the words. At the time Genesis was written it was unknown that the life forms of earth came in stages or eras but Genesis one claims this to be true....long before one fossil was found.

Since that time we've learned a great deal and found that plants can't exist on Earth unless Earth has a sun.

False.

We've learned that atmospheres are necessary for any planet to capture and retain liquid water.

So?

We've learned that the sky is not a solid dome.

I understand the reason behind this statement but the word used in the Bible can mean expanse as well. Which says nothing about a solid dome.

We've learned that the Earth is not flat and does not sit stationary.

The Bible doesn't claim this.

We've learned that the sun, moon and stars all sit far, far from our planet and do not reside within the dome once thought to be the top of the sky.

Your interpretation.

When we place this information -- the reality of our Earth -- against the claims in the Bible, we find the Bible to be sorrowly lacking in factuality. It simply doesn't comply with reality. You can claim God did things backward all you like but since the Bible makes no claims such as those you use to try to justify inverse chronological orders, you're really speaking for yourself and not for the Bible you claim to be defending.

The Genesis order is almost exact to the evidence we have today. Which is pretty amazing for a book you consider uninspired. The writers of Genesis could not have known the way life came about at the time.

You're making appeals to things which haven't occurred and have, on the basis of reality, absolutely zero chance of happening, in order to try to defend against my statement. And if Revelation were to unfold as you hope it will, would it not be God directing the event? Therefore, no matter how you wish to look at it, my statement remains correct -- only God would have the ability to provide confirmation for the Bible. And again, as I stated, God has never shown any interest in doing that. No god has ever provided substantiation for a single word of any bible. No god can ever be shown to have done even one single thing.

Simply false. You deny the Bible and then claim God has not shown any interest in providing evidence. If the CWV is correct then the Bible is correct and you can find it with ease. It remains the most read and bought book in the world.

Once again; you simply can't make reasonable appeals to things that haven't happened as evidence for your argument. They haven't happened. That being the case, they make a far better argument against your case than for it. If they ever do happen, then you can use them. Until then, they serve only as additional false claims from the Bible.

There are plenty of things that have happened that can be proven in the Bible but you out and out refuse or deny the Bible so it is due to your denial that any claims in it to you are false.

Okay. Let's take a good look at Matthew 24. What do we find as the signs given? We see buildings which don't last forever, we see claims of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, betrayals, false prophets, a disbelief in Christianity and lightning across the sky.

Now, tell me of a time in confirmed history when these things have not been found upon the Earth. That's why for as long as the Bible has existed, there have been people proclaiming the signs of the end times to be before us. And though they have spouted these warnings for 2,000 years, we've never yet seen what the Bible claims will follow.

LOL This only confirms the Bible. As shown God says that men will be saying this in the end days. Why, because it hasn't happened yet and men think they know when it should have rather than understanding that it will be in God's time not theirs.

When someone owes you money, how long do you accept the promise, "The check is in the mail", before you begin to grow suspicious?

It is not surprising with the mindset of a non-believer to feel that the promise is not forthcoming but for a Christian we do understand God's timing and although we don't know the day we do know what to look for. God is a God of the literal in many way. In the past many of the details in the last days would have had to happen supernatually to come about. God usually works within the bounds of the natural. Those things that had to be supernaturally provided no longer are necessary; those details are present now.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Whoops double post sorry. Computer malfunction.

 

[Beastt]

Without God reality is completely without comprehension.

There is a vast difference between a statement backed by evidence and one which is nothing more than an unsupportable personal opinion. While you might wish to suggest that reality is incomprehensible without God, this is demonstrably contrary to the truth. Science finds no evidence of God and as science is an evidence-driven procedure, it can hold no concept of that for which there is no evidence. But despite this, the vast majority of what we know and hold to be our reality, which is testable, repeatable and dependable, arises from science, even without the concept of God you suggest is so vital to comprehension.

History is ripe with wars that were unrelated to religion. Greed and power have done as much or more to spur actions of horrendous killing, maiming, raping, pillaging and torment..i.e. Joseph Stalin

While it's true that not all wars are related to, or spawned via religious beliefs, a significant percentage of them have been and continue to be. What harm would you see to being able to eliminate that percentage of wars and the hatred, blood shed, killing and suffering which go with them? It might not eliminate war, but it would be a substantial improvement.

There will always be suffering and blood shed, mankind can always come up with what they consider reasons to kill. It doesn't take religion to spur them on anymore than it does a belief that they are more superior than another; mankind can always come up with reasons to kill others.

This again is true. But it's also true that without religion, there is substantial reason to believe that there would be a significant reduction in the amount of blood shed and suffering common to the world. I don't think that just because it wouldn't elminate war that it wouldn't be a good thing to cut the suffering by a significant percentage. And religion will always lend itself to the hatred of others because at its core, it teaches that some people are more in tuned to a supreme authority. We can find the posts in the past few pages which suggest that if your god is the "right god", you will vanquish your enemies in times of war. What more do people need than to believe that their god wants them to slaughter those who worship a different god before they take up arms and begin the sickening and pointless slaughter which has followed religion throughout history?

In your opinion of course, because obviously you have no idea what God should or should not do.

And yet, we should all have some idea if we are to see the Bible as God's word. But we don't. And we don't because the Bible fails to take a firm stand. It echos many sentiments from ancient cultures. In some areas we are told not to kill and to love our enemies. In other areas we are told to take up a sword and dice to bits, even the children of our enemies. In still other areas we are assured that God is unchanging. And all the while, we're assured by those who manage to wade through the miriad of contrasting claims and commandments and not notice that even those who claim the same belief, from the same source, may be as different as night and day because they choose different parts of scripture upon which to base and justify their own desires and character. Those prone to war and violence will see and present themselves as "soldiers of God", while others will seek only to provide charitable help to any who need a hand and present themselves as extensions of God's love.

This is just my opinion? Need I wander back through the thread and offer examples of the contrasting lessons of Christianity as presented by its followers?

It doesn't disprove God just because He doesn't respond in the manner in which you feel He should.

Certainly not. But when God is presented as vengeful, wrathful, jealous, hateful and spiteful, and then a few chapters later presented as kind, benevolent, caring and the very definition of love and still later we are told he is consistent and unchanging, it certainly provides no stable character for God. What it seems to present is the echoed emotions of the men who wrote of the God they imagined existed. When they felt vengeful, their God was vengeful. When they were prone to jealousy, they saw no way that any God after their own heart could be other than jealous. And when they allowed their natural compassion to come forward, they saw that as a sign that God must also be compassionate. So by the time they're done endowing their God with all of the traits and varied moods they had themselves, we find a God who does nothing other than mimick men, yet still proclaims himself to be perfect and unchanging.

You should stop to consider that without the CWV reality is unknowable.

It takes far more than simply making a statement to support that statement. This statement is as unsupportable as that which you first made at the start of your post. I used to believe and what I found was the need for all of the standard Christian cliche's. "The Lord works in mysterious ways." "Who are we to understand the ways of the Lord?" "God's ways are not our ways." "The human mind is too feeble to be able to understand the ways of God." These, I've found, are nothing more than the excuses people offer themselves when they notice the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible and within Christianity itself. Since giving up belief in a supreme being, I find I have no need for such excuses. Things do make sense when you extract the concept of a god from the equation. And, as usual, when you remove a component from a concept which fails to make sense with the arbitrary inclusion of that component and find that it makes more sense, provides more consistency and a more comprehensive explanation of reality without said component, it's a very strong indication that the component is not a part of the concept and is therefore, not a part of the reality you keep claiming can't be understood without it. Occam's razor works.

The objection here is that without any reason for reality your reality nor mine means nothing.

You're anthropomorphizing, just as did the people who assumed that a mountain could not spew ash, smoke and magma unless controlled by a human-like entity they called a "god". You've arbitrarily assigned a need for reality to have a reason. What is the reason for a dead moon circling a planet 65 light years from the Milky Way? The fact is, you want to have reasons and you are a sentient, thinking creature. But you're trying to assign the same qualities of thought and sentience to that which does not possess those qualities. And as the inanimate non-sentient portions of the universe, (the vast majority of the universe), obviously have no sentience or driving reason, you've assigned an over-seeing entity to those things so that you can understand them on your terms. But they do not exist on your terms. They existed long before you and will exist long after you. They will continue to exist after the human race has vanished from the universe and well beyond that point. A dead moon has no need of reason. It doesn't vanish simply because it has no concept of itself or "reason" to exist. You are not the measure by which reality exists. It has no need of your need to find reason. You are born of the universe. The universe was not born of you nor is it here to serve you. It has no need of your desire to find reason.

A book (the Bible) or a scientific journal stand equal in value and validity.

Again we find a statement without support and without supportability. Scientific journals are subject to intense peer-review. Most of what appears in them have already been subjected to intense peer-review and will continue to be met with challenges. When they fail those challenges they must be adjusted or abandoned until they fall in line with reality.

The Bible is excluded from these processes by the very people who wish to hold it as a measure of ultimate truth. They ignore or excuse the fact that the Bible makes demonstrably false claims. They ignore that early Hebrew depictions, based upon the Bible, illustrate exactly those things which we know today to be incorrect, which the Bible still claims are correct. We don't live on a flat planet. We have no solid dome of "sky" overhead. The sun, moon and stars do not reside along with the clouds in our atmosphere. We do not sit stationary as the sun moves around us. Were the Bible to stand in equal value and validity to a scientific journal, it would be just as subject to scrutiny and adjustment when that scrutiny showed obvious error. But it is not and cannot be because too many people insist that it is the word of God and God can't be wrong. None-the-less, the book is demonstrably wrong on dozens and dozens of counts. It is a human work. It was written by men, edited by men, translated by men and even sorted through to remove and include only what certain men decided it should contain. It contains the claims of men who had no knowledge other than that held cummulatively by the men of their time and within their isolated portion of the world.

Without the CWV claims that either are false are based solely on opinion without any validity at all.

You can keep saying this. But you can't demonstrate it to be true. Nor can you offer any credible degree of support for such a conclusion. The universe is not geocentric. The Bible insinuates so strongly that it is, that for more than 16-centuries, the church not only taught this as fact, but even persecuted and executed those who instead believed the data obtained through science. But it is not simply opinion that the universe is heliocentric. This is clearly demonstrable as is the failure of the Bible's "cure" for leprosy, it's claims of plants growing devoid of the sun, it's claims that the sun, moon and stars were created within Earth's atmosphere and a great number of other false claims of the Bible. Eventually Christians lost the battle to maintain a concept of geocentrism just as they are today losing the battle to maintain a concept of creationism.

At any rate, I have no idea why I'm awake at this hour and I should take steps to rectify that before the tilting of the horizon finds alignment with the rays of the sun. I'll pick up on this at a more appropriate time.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

When we place this information -- the reality of our Earth -- against the claims in the Bible, we find the Bible to be sorrowly lacking in factuality. It simply doesn't comply with reality. You can claim God did things backward all you like but since the Bible makes no claims such as those you use to try to justify inverse chronological orders, you're really speaking for yourself and not for the Bible you claim to be defending.

The Genesis order is almost exact to the evidence we have today. Which is pretty amazing for a book you consider uninspired. The writers of Genesis could not have known the way life came about at the time.

I did not realize what this claim was until i read _Paradigms on Pilgrimage_. First the claim is false, the order of Gen 1 taken as a modern scientific cosmogony is wrong. Second, it is internally wrong, the sun did not exist before light, plants did not exist before the sun and the moon is a reflector not a source of light. Lastly and most importantly you are making claims for the Scripture that it does not make for itself, exceeding it' grasp and purpose makes your faith brittle and liable to be "disproved" when you actually understand the science you are talking about.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is a vast difference between a statement backed by evidence and one which is nothing more than an unsupportable personal opinion. While you might wish to suggest that reality is incomprehensible without God, this is demonstrably contrary to the truth. Science finds no evidence of God and as science is an evidence-driven procedure, it can hold no concept of that for which there is no evidence. But despite this, the vast majority of what we know and hold to be our reality, which is testable, repeatable and dependable, arises from science, even without the concept of God you suggest is so vital to comprehension.

Ok, what is reality? What is truth? What is knowledge? Answer these three things for me and we will see if my statement is unsupportable.

While it's true that not all wars are related to, or spawned via religious beliefs, a significant percentage of them have been and continue to be. What harm would you see to being able to eliminate that percentage of wars and the hatred, blood shed, killing and suffering which go with them? It might not eliminate war, but it would be a substantial improvement.

This statement assumes that if religion was not present there would be less war but that is based on your opinion. What wars now are based on religion? What wars are based on democide? What wars are based on defense of borders? Religion is only one small part of the world of wars and really it could be said that less people would die in this present time if it were not for the democide in this century. It seems a more logical position to eliminate genocide and democide since the major killing is in these two areas.

This again is true. But it's also true that without religion, there is substantial reason to believe that there would be a significant reduction in the amount of blood shed and suffering common to the world. I don't think that just because it wouldn't elminate war that it wouldn't be a good thing to cut the suffering by a significant percentage.

Without religion there is always reason to kill. The world holds Christianity as its top religion. It is in the Christian tenets that killing is wrong except when defending yourself and family. If this was disregarded do you think that would be more helpful or would allow for more killing?

And religion will always lend itself to the hatred of others because at its core, it teaches that some people are more in tuned to a supreme authority.

What religion does that? Hatred of others stems not from religion but from mankind and the men within it. Blaming the ills of the world on religion is a false assumption in which you place your opinion as authority.

We can find the posts in the past few pages which suggest that if your god is the "right god", you will vanquish your enemies in times of war. What more do people need than to believe that their god wants them to slaughter those who worship a different god before they take up arms and begin the sickening and pointless slaughter which has followed religion throughout history?

It is indeed sickening, but so is killing millions in the name of power or superiority. Some wars are necessary to insure safety and freedom of people against others who would take that away. War is not always a bad thing when you are being attacked or killed and the only thing to do is fight back.

And yet, we should all have some idea if we are to see the Bible as God's word. But we don't. And we don't because the Bible fails to take a firm stand. It echos many sentiments from ancient cultures. In some areas we are told not to kill and to love our enemies. In other areas we are told to take up a sword and dice to bits, even the children of our enemies. In still other areas we are assured that God is unchanging. And all the while, we're assured by those who manage to wade through the miriad of contrasting claims and commandments and not notice that even those who claim the same belief, from the same source, may be as different as night and day because they choose different parts of scripture upon which to base and justify their own desires and character.

It is not that we fail to see those contrasting Scriptures, it is that you fail to see the differences between them and what they mean. Without the Holy Spirit you are unable to understand the meaning in the Bible. The Bible is different to all that read it. That it is testifies to its wonder. I don't expect you to understand however.

Those prone to war and violence will see and present themselves as "soldiers of God", while others will seek only to provide charitable help to any who need a hand and present themselves as extensions of God's love.

This is true of any avenue of life. Those with propensities to violence find reason for that in any form.

This is just my opinion? Need I wander back through the thread and offer examples of the contrasting lessons of Christianity as presented by its followers?

I agree that there are contrasting views but that too is true in all levels of existence.

Certainly not. But when God is presented as vengeful, wrathful, jealous, hateful and spiteful, and then a few chapters later presented as kind, benevolent, caring and the very definition of love and still later we are told he is consistent and unchanging, it certainly provides no stable character for God.

It is hard to understand God without any personal experience.

What it seems to present is the echoed emotions of the men who wrote of the God they imagined existed. When they felt vengeful, their God was vengeful. When they were prone to jealousy, they saw no way that any God after their own heart could be other than jealous. And when they allowed their natural compassion to come forward, they saw that as a sign that God must also be compassionate. So by the time they're done endowing their God with all of the traits and varied moods they had themselves, we find a God who does nothing other than mimick men, yet still proclaims himself to be perfect and unchanging.

The Bible holds verifible truth. The differences you see are different events. There are different lessons to be learned. Each instance has something of value. Christians understand this, the Bible is a tool to understand but it takes the Holy Spririt to fully understand the messages therein.

It takes far more than simply making a statement to support that statement. This statement is as unsupportable as that which you first made at the start of your post. I used to believe and what I found was the need for all of the standard Christian cliche's. "The Lord works in mysterious ways." "Who are we to understand the ways of the Lord?" "God's ways are not our ways." "The human mind is too feeble to be able to understand the ways of God." These, I've found, are nothing more than the excuses people offer themselves when they notice the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible and within Christianity itself. Since giving up belief in a supreme being, I find I have no need for such excuses. Things do make sense when you extract the concept of a god from the equation. And, as usual, when you remove a component from a concept which fails to make sense with the arbitrary inclusion of that component and find that it makes more sense, provides more consistency and a more comprehensive explanation of reality without said component, it's a very strong indication that the component is not a part of the concept and is therefore, not a part of the reality you keep claiming can't be understood without it. Occam's razor works.

Explain reality and how Occam's razor works.

You're anthropomorphizing, just as did the people who assumed that a mountain could not spew ash, smoke and magma unless controlled by a human-like entity they called a "god". You've arbitrarily assigned a need for reality to have a reason. What is the reason for a dead moon circling a planet 65 light years from the Milky Way? The fact is, you want to have reasons and you are a sentient, thinking creature. But you're trying to assign the same qualities of thought and sentience to that which does not possess those qualities.

What creates the quality of thought?

And as the inanimate non-sentient portions of the universe, (the vast majority of the universe), obviously have no sentience or driving reason, you've assigned an over-seeing entity to those things so that you can understand them on your terms. But they do not exist on your terms. They existed long before you and will exist long after you. They will continue to exist after the human race has vanished from the universe and well beyond that point. A dead moon has no need of reason. It doesn't vanish simply because it has no concept of itself or "reason" to exist. You are not the measure by which reality exists. It has no need of your need to find reason. You are born of the universe. The universe was not born of you nor is it here to serve you. It has no need of your desire to find reason.

If there are no reasons for the universe, if there is no reason for the universe to be the way it is how do you know what has reason and what does not? How can you explore the why of things if there is no reason for them to be the way they are?

Again we find a statement without support and without supportability. Scientific journals are subject to intense peer-review. Most of what appears in them have already been subjected to intense peer-review and will continue to be met with challenges. When they fail those challenges they must be adjusted or abandoned until they fall in line with reality.

How much peer-review? What constitutes intense? How much review does it take to determine truth in regard to reality? Scientist are human they fail, their theories fail so why put so much faith in what a scientist says?

The Bible is excluded from these processes by the very people who wish to hold it as a measure of ultimate truth.

Whoa....so you are putting every believer into this catagory?

They ignore or excuse the fact that the Bible makes demonstrably false claims. They ignore that early Hebrew depictions, based upon the Bible, illustrate exactly those things which we know today to be incorrect, which the Bible still claims are correct. We don't live on a flat planet. We have no solid dome of "sky" overhead. The sun, moon and stars do not reside along with the clouds in our atmosphere. We do not sit stationary as the sun moves around us.

Opinion.

Were the Bible to stand in equal value and validity to a scientific journal, it would be just as subject to scrutiny and adjustment when that scrutiny showed obvious error. But it is not and cannot be because too many people insist that it is the word of God and God can't be wrong. None-the-less, the book is demonstrably wrong on dozens and dozens of counts. It is a human work.

LOL It is human work...Science is human work. Non-believers always cite certain "mistakes" in the Bible but when the Believers give a reason for the "mistake" showing it is not one they say we are making excuses. It comes down to you and your worldview and our's to our worldview. It can be understood by believers but it is not so with non-believers; if the CWV is correct this is what we would expect according to Scripture.

It was written by men, edited by men, translated by men and even sorted through to remove and include only what certain men decided it should contain. It contains the claims of men who had no knowledge other than that held cummulatively by the men of their time and within their isolated portion of the world.

I never claimed it was not written by men. Your other assumptions are based fully on your opinion and nothing more.

You can keep saying this. But you can't demonstrate it to be true. Nor can you offer any credible degree of support for such a conclusion.

Answer my questions and we will go from there.

The Bible insinuates so strongly that it is, that for more than 16-centuries, the church not only taught this as fact, but even persecuted and executed those who instead believed the data obtained through science.

This is false. There will always be some that persecute and even execute for what ever reason they can come up with but Science was very prominent in religous thought.

But it is not simply opinion that the universe is heliocentric. This is clearly demonstrable as is the failure of the Bible's "cure" for leprosy, it's claims of plants growing devoid of the sun, it's claims that the sun, moon and stars were created within Earth's atmosphere and a great number of other false claims of the Bible. Eventually Christians lost the battle to maintain a concept of geocentrism just as they are today losing the battle to maintain a concept of creationism.

I have demonstrated plants growing devoid of sun, it doesn't state the sun, moon and stars were created within the Earth's atmoshere. You make false claims and then claim they prove the Bible false.