An Open Question

[EddyMabo]

dinosaurs were created on the six day along with every other creature that roams the earth.

Except all the evidence shows that is a complete fantasy.

 

[Danyc]

the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs cause the word dinosaur wasn't invented until 1841 by Richard Owen. there are literally millions of animals that the bible doesn't mention. the bible is interested in human stories not name checking every animal that god ever created.
dinosaurs were created on the six day along with every other creature that roams the earth.

You really think 'human stories' might not include the ways in which they might have interacted with giant reptiles towering over their buildings, eating their young, and generally causing fear and chaos? Ever heard of Velociraptors?

Wait a minute, why am I even giving this disgustingly stupid post any attention?

 

[MrMoe]

You really think 'human stories' might not include the ways in which they might have interacted with giant reptiles towering over their buildings, eating their young, and generally causing fear and chaos? Ever heard of Velociraptors?

Actually it does. Ever heard of the book of Job? One of the oldest books in the bible. Mentions a fierce creature called leviathan and how many feared it. also talks about behemoth a creature that's description sounds a lot like a sauropod dinosaur. please read the bible before you try to attack it

Wait a minute, why am I even giving this disgustingly stupid post any attention?

I'm guessing you're smart enough to spot the irony of this comment

 

[dysert]

At no point during creation were dinosaurs made, nor were the referenced at any point in the bible, should the dating be right, they would have had to co-exist with humans.
Catholic preists have traced the bible dates back and pinned "creation" to approximately 6000 years ago, hence the vast majority of creationists believe the earth to be 6000 years old.

Let me break this down:

• At no point during creation were dinosaurs made: I'm inferring you're talking about the creation account in the Bible? If I'm right, my response is, "so what?" The creation account doesn't mention ice, fire, bacteria, and a host of other things. That doesn't mean they weren't made. Put your logic hat on here. Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't made.
• nor were the referenced at any point in the bible: Again, so what? Cars and computers aren't referenced in the Bible, yet we know they exist.
• should the dating be right, they would have had to co-exist with humans: Ok. but so what?
• Catholic preists have traced the bible dates back and pinned "creation" to approximately 6000 years ago, hence the vast majority of creationists believe the earth to be 6000 years old: I really don't care what Catholic priests have done, and what do they have to do with our discussion anyway? You indicated that the Bible said the earth is 6000 years old. The fact is, it doesn't say that. Can't you at least be honest about your claims -- especially given the fact that you can't support them.

Come on, Quantum. If you claim the Bible says something, give the reference for where it says it. Since you can't in these cases, then you should retract what you've claimed. Aren't you interested in an honest debate?

 

[dysert]

The only way anything could be eternal is if something immaterial were to exist, which is a common suggestion of Substance Dualism. The problem with this theory is that if God were real, and were eternal, it must be immaterial. The laws of logic and science dictate that for anything to interact it must share similar properties.

(Thanks for pointing me back to #12 to see where you presented your argument that material and immaterial cannot interace.)

I'm not familiar with any such laws. Ordinarily I would take your word for it, but since you've lost credibility by claiming the Bible says things it doesn't say, then I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. What laws are you talking about, specifically?

On second thought, this almost doesn't matter. The reason is because the laws of science deal only with material that can be detected through our senses. This doesn't apply to God, so these laws don't apply either.

How on earth would science be able to identify a "law" about something that science doesn't even believe exists? That would be like me saying:

• Ghosts must be able to become visible/invisible at will
• Nothing can make itself visible/invisible at will
• Therefore, ghosts don't exist

Obviously this is flawed. The major premise is pulled from thin air. Looks to me like science (again, even assuming that it identified such a law) has set up a straw man.

This also doesn't much matter for another reason. God does share similar properties with us. For example, He has emotion, reason, love, strength, wisdom, and other immaterial properties -- just like we have.

These is the primary reason I lost my faith.

I'm truly sorry that you lost your faith because of something as lame as this.

 

[dysert]

The only thing ridiculous is stating the bible has no contradictions.

I've only been in CF since the end of February, yet in this relatively short amount of time, there have been several different people claiming the Bible has contradictions. Each time I've asked them for examples, and guess what? Nothing. If you think you've found a contradiction please post it. Absent that, you should retract your statement.

 

[dysert]

Except all the evidence shows that is a complete fantasy.

Please cite the evidence that shows dinosaurs weren't created on Day Six (note: I don't think the Days of creation are literal 24-hour periods of time).

 

[ranunculus]

Then you do not understand the function or meaning of a logical syllogism.

Instead of claiming I don't understand, why not demonstrate how i'm wrong?
I'll reiterate again.
The collection of things that don't have a beginning contains only one item, namely god. You agreed on this. Therefor everything has a beginning except for god. This follows logically. You have no choice but to accept this unless you think there are other things that did not begin to exist.
The argument you put forth goes: 'Everything that begins to exist has to have a cause'. Since the collection of things that didn't begin to exist contains only god, we can reword the first premise to 'Everything except god has a cause.' The argument is unchanged.
Please show my error.

I guess the words just typed in your post appeared there by themselves!

I ask for an example of a mind not contingent on a brain and you think I'm that example. For real?
What kind of immaterial being do you think I am? Do you think I'm a ghost?
Seriously, waw.

 

[ranunculus]

My question is why do you think that everything needs a beginning? You are relying on the same faith-based reasoning for the idea that everything needs a beginning, just as Christians do for God.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7668718-3/#post60869421

 

[EddyMabo]

Please cite the evidence that shows dinosaurs weren't created on Day Six (note: I don't think the Days of creation are literal 24-hour periods of time).

I don't have to cite evidence because you are making the claim that Genesis is more than a Bronze Age story. The evidence for a high percentage of species that have existed being already extinct during different periods is plentiful however so clearly not everything existed in the beginning.

I've only been in CF since the end of February, yet in this relatively short amount of time, there have been several different people claiming the Bible has contradictions. Each time I've asked them for examples, and guess what? Nothing. If you think you've found a contradiction please post it. Absent that, you should retract your statement.

Lets start with a trivial one... Did Jesus tell his disciples everything?

John 15:15
For all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. John 16:12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Let me break this down:

• At no point during creation were dinosaurs made: I'm inferring you're talking about the creation account in the Bible? If I'm right, my response is, "so what?" The creation account doesn't mention ice, fire, bacteria, and a host of other things. That doesn't mean they weren't made. Put your logic hat on here. Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't made.
• nor were the referenced at any point in the bible: Again, so what? Cars and computers aren't referenced in the Bible, yet we know they exist.
• should the dating be right, they would have had to co-exist with humans: Ok. but so what?
• Catholic preists have traced the bible dates back and pinned "creation" to approximately 6000 years ago, hence the vast majority of creationists believe the earth to be 6000 years old: I really don't care what Catholic priests have done, and what do they have to do with our discussion anyway? You indicated that the Bible said the earth is 6000 years old. The fact is, it doesn't say that. Can't you at least be honest about your claims -- especially given the fact that you can't support them.

Come on, Quantum. If you claim the Bible says something, give the reference for where it says it. Since you can't in these cases, then you should retract what you've claimed. Aren't you interested in an honest debate?

The point I'm making here was not intended to be an attack against the entire theology of christianity and I apologise if it seemed that way. I know that the vast majority of christians believe in the earth being 4.54 billion years old.
I was only referencing this in response to an earlier poster who believed in the "6000 year old earth" theory.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

(Thanks for pointing me back to #12 to see where you presented your argument that material and immaterial cannot interace.)

I'm not familiar with any such laws. Ordinarily I would take your word for it, but since you've lost credibility by claiming the Bible says things it doesn't say, then I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. What laws are you talking about, specifically?

On second thought, this almost doesn't matter. The reason is because the laws of science deal only with material that can be detected through our senses. This doesn't apply to God, so these laws don't apply either.

How on earth would science be able to identify a "law" about something that science doesn't even believe exists? That would be like me saying:

• Ghosts must be able to become visible/invisible at will
• Nothing can make itself visible/invisible at will
• Therefore, ghosts don't exist

Obviously this is flawed. The major premise is pulled from thin air. Looks to me like science (again, even assuming that it identified such a law) has set up a straw man.

This also doesn't much matter for another reason. God does share similar properties with us. For example, He has emotion, reason, love, strength, wisdom, and other immaterial properties -- just like we have.

I can happily point out the major law in this argument. The law of energy transformation. Energy has to exist to be converted to one form or another. E.g. Chemical energy in a human transfered to kinetic (among others) to move a billiard ball. This transfers energy into that ball. This ball in turn strikes another, converting energy into both sound and kinetic energy.

As for your second point, I would not regard any emotive qualities as immaterial. Ref posts 63-65

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Just as a reference to any Christians who may feel I am overstepping myself here:
At no point do I claim to KNOW that God is not real. I realise it is literally impossible to DISPROVE something. I just feel that materialism and empiricism lead me to strongly doubt the existence.

 

[dysert]

Lets start with a trivial one... Did Jesus tell his disciples everything?

John 15:15
For all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

John 16:12
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

How is this a contradiction? There were two sets of information that Jesus wanted to tell the disciples: 1 - the information from the Father, and 2 - the information from Jesus.

Ch. 15 says that at that point Jesus had delivered the information from the Father. Ch. 16 says that there's still information from Jesus that He had not yet delivered. Remember, a contradiction would be where the Bible says "A" in one place and "not A" in another. These verses aren't like that at all.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

How is this a contradiction? There were two sets of information that Jesus wanted to tell the disciples: 1 - the information from the Father, and 2 - the information from Jesus.

Ch. 15 says that at that point Jesus had delivered the information from the Father. Ch. 16 says that there's still information from Jesus that He had not yet delivered. Remember, a contradiction would be where the Bible says "A" in one place and "not A" in another. These verses aren't like that at all.

Ref post 14

 

[dysert]

I can happily point out the major law in this argument. The law of energy transformation. Energy has to exist to be converted to one form or another. E.g. Chemical energy in a human transfered to kinetic (among others) to move a billiard ball. This transfers energy into that ball. This ball in turn strikes another, converting energy into both sound and kinetic energy.

Thanks for that. But nowhere do I see something that says immaterial objects can't interact with material objects, which I believe was the major point you were trying to make.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Thanks for that. But nowhere do I see something that says immaterial objects can't interact with material objects, which I believe was the major point you were trying to make.

The premise of immaterial is that something exists without matter. Energy = matter. Therefore they cannot transfer energy as they cannot posses it.

 

[dysert]

Ref post 14

I did reread #14 (again), and it doesn't talk about any Bible verses, let alone the ones being questioned in John. And the points it does raise I addressed. How does #14 relate to Jesus delivering information from both the Father and Himself?

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

As the weight fell it possessed kinetic energy, the energy of movement. Where did that kinetic energy come from? It was stored in the weight when the weight was suspended from the ledge of the tower. We actually put that energy into the weight when we climbed the stairs of the tower carrying the weight with us.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

I did reread #14 (again), and it doesn't talk about any Bible verses, let alone the ones being questioned in John. And the points it does raise I addressed. How does #14 relate to Jesus delivering information from both the Father and Himself?

It isn't related to the father/jesus thing. Its just one of the more evident contradictions I have noticed. As soon as one changed from the final book of the old testament to the first of the new, God's "personality" changes to one almost perfectly mirrored.