That compares to a God that died for you??
To a Viking, it surely did.
ps: God is supposed to be an all-powerful, eternal, immortal being...
Some things in the bible are a matter of salvation of your soul, others are not. God is the one that decides if you spend eternity with Him or go to hell ( personally do not believe in an everlasting burning hell---there is a hell, we quibble over if it is eternal or not.)
Yes, I know. I am fully aware that you people can't agree on that one either.
No, but you guys always want to blame us for all the evil in the world and never seem to include yourselves.
Who is "you guys"?
Certainly, not me. I never made any such claim. So it's a bit unfair of you to throw such accusations around.
Wrong. Scientific discoveries are slanted to what the personal believes of anyone is.
Give me an example of a single scientific idea that is dependend on the religious beliefs of the one that came up with said idea.
When presented with something, if you do not believe in God or anything in the bible, that possibility is absolutely not taken into consideration
That's what I'm telling you. Mere beliefs are not taken into consideration. Things supported by actual evidence, are taken into consideration.
---such as the flood----it could not have happened
That is exactly right. And we KNOW it could not have happened, because that story makes testable predictions. Predictions that do not check out at all when actually tested.
In other words, we can disprove that story. Quite easily, I might add.
We KNOW the story is wrong. We can prove it wrong.
no matter if there are seashells on top of mountains just about everywhere
Especially on those mountains that used to be the bottom of ancient seas before they were mountains....
, there still could not have been a flood, only several local ones.
Yep. We can actually demonstrate that local floods happen. There is no evidence of a global flood. And in the specific case of the biblical flood, we can literally disprove it.
See... it always comes down to the evidence.
The thought is never even given any consideration.
Why would we give any consideration to demonstrably false ideas?
Or to ideas that don't have an iota of supportive evidence in reality?
That is the way it should be--but isn't.
Says the guy who just complained that science doesn't care about faith based religious beliefs like impossible floods.....
There are absolutes and there are those things that have variables.
Sorry, but the difference between claiming the earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion, is a bit more then some mere "variable" that you wish to brush of as not that interesting or important.
One of both is wrong to a magnitude comparable to claiming that US is only 6 miles from west coast to east coast....
When you deal with faith, whether it is faith in a big bang, or faith in the big bang being God spoke and it was done--they are both faith--
The big bang is a scientific theory that was concluded from the evidence.
God is a religious belief with no evidence.
Scientific theories don't require faith (the opposite, actually... such "faith" is not allowed in science, because it explicitly means to accept something as correct without evidence).
Religious beliefs require faith. Demand faith, even.
you can not in any way shape or form, reproduce, scientifically, either position.
Big bang theory makes testable predictions. That makes it verifiable and falsifiable.
As it should be in science.
God? not so much.
And you most certainly will not get 100 different answers to the question of the flood.
I know it was an exaggeration. I know that a lot of fundamentalists will just repeat what their "professional creationist" of choice says. Still, it will be a lot more then just 1.
In the flood thread on this very forum, I've read 5 different versions.
They disagree on timeframe, location and/or scope, the origins of the water, where the water went to, how those on the physically impossible boat managed to survive, etc etc.
99% of believers, do believe in a flood
86% of stats on the internet are invented on the spot.
I don't know a single catholic (the majority of christians) that believes in a literal flood.
Anyhow, that statement of yours is so vague that it doesn't mean anything...
It's like saying "95% of people believe in a god". Sure. But the difference between you and a hindu is about as big as between you and me.
, there are some that think it was perhaps regional. Some question if it is perhaps an allegory. But it will not be 100 different answers.
I'm talking about the details. cfr, the disagreements I mentioned earlier. It is expected that such wide disagreement exists. Because the beliefs are faith-based and not evidence based.
If the flood claims were evidence based, then we would KNOW where it happened, when it happened, what the scope was, etc.
This is why physicists will agree on the properties and workings of atoms. Because those models are actually evidence based. They were concluded from the evidence.
According to you, not us.
According to the evidence.
The evidence says it didn't. And evidence trumps opinion.
They were created perfect, with perfect health and genes and with DNA that was not flawed and did not pass on any flaws yet. They carried all genes and DNA needed to provide the various differences in colors and so on. One woman could give birth to several hundred children over at least 600 hundred years (today one woman can give birth to over 22 chidren ) Before that one woman stopped giving birth, her children would have been reproducing for several hundred years. There were no flaws to pass on and brothers and sisters and close relatives married. It was not banned until long after the flood when genetics did become flawed.
By the time Adam and eve died, they were scalp deep in progeny. You do not believe that the human body can live till almost 1000 years, yet they have found living sharks that are over 270 years old and is being debated quite aggressively that it could be over 500 years.
Scientists didn’t discover a 512-year-old shark, probably
Yes, those are your religious beliefs.
The actual evidence disproves these claims.
Not the first to ask--
Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Joh_18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
Joh_1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Joh_1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Joh_4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Joh_14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Joh_14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Joh_15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Joh_16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Joh_16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Joh_17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Any time you are done citing the bible / preaching and actually wish to answer the question....
Because I actually care about what is true.
