Fairytale?

[NailsII]

But the question is WHAT caused this expansion and WHY and HOW and WHERE did the "materials" come from that went "BANG"???

I'm sure that you are aware of E=Mc2 - implying that energy and matter are interchangeable forms of the same thing. Therefore, small amount of matter can release huge amounts of energy (as in an atomic weapon) and the converse is also true.

 

[Inan3]

Hello?

Sorry, every time I try to download it I seem to be at work and this is a Mac and I can't seem to get it to download so I can read it. I'll try again when I am home and then get back to you on it.

 

[Inan3]

I'm sure that you are aware of E=Mc2 - implying that energy and matter are interchangeable forms of the same thing. Therefore, small amount of matter can release huge amounts of energy (as in an atomic weapon) and the converse is also true.

So I guess what you are telling me is that a small amount of matter released a huge amount of energy and became the incredible universe that we live in. Why didn't the atom bomb work the same way? It seemed to be more destructive rather than constructive.

 

[NailsII]

So I guess what you are telling me is that a small amount of matter released a huge amount of energy and became the incredible universe that we live in. Why didn't the atom bomb work the same way? It seemed to be more destructive rather than constructive.

No, I dont think matter existed before the big bang. The point I tried to make is that energy can become matter, and an enormous release of energy can potentially become a large amount of matter (or dark matter, or antimatter).
The atom bomb is only destructive when released in an enclosed area, such as the surface of a planet. If there was litterally nothing there, an explosion cannot destroy anything....

 

[NailsII]

deleted

 

[FishFace]

So I guess what you are telling me is that a small amount of matter released a huge amount of energy and became the incredible universe that we live in. Why didn't the atom bomb work the same way? It seemed to be more destructive rather than constructive.

Do you really need to ask this question? The sun is the same process as an atom bomb, and without it there would be no life on earth. Nuclear reactions aren't all destructive, just as all exothermic chemical reactions aren't destructive - depending on how they're used.

 

[Inan3]

Hmm, intersting proposition.
What do you have in mind? (maybe we should continue this by PM.....
I wonder if your husband (or my wife for that matter) would object?

Cute Nails, but I have put on the proper garments, for all to see. Have you seen my characters new duds? I'm ready! What do you think? My husband has seen these "duds" many times and I tell him about all you guys.

 

[FoeHammer]

Its not my fault if anything I say exceeds your comprehension. But I will paraphrase: How does "Gopddidit" explain how Goddidit? How does it explain any of the data we see around us?

The fossil record? The geologic column? The Hubble ultra-deep field? Your fingernails, hair follicles, impacted wisdom teeth and all the other traits which identify you as an ape? Name anything your excuse explains.

It doesn’t exceed my comprehension but it obviously exceeded yours. I asked you to explain why you think it needs explaining which required an answer not a question.

You'll have to do better than that.

Better than point out that it is in fact you that has repeatedly stated this and not I? It is your excuse and not mine. You are beyond a joke, there is nothing even remotely amusing about your posts any more. Being simply mistaken about what I say is one thing deliberately misrepresenting what I say is quite another.

It can't be a "complete" and "firm" trust if it is based on evidence. Faith based on evidence is an oxymoron.

Of course it isn’t. For example, think of all the people and other elements involved whenever you travel by air (assuming that you do). Regardless of how many times an airplane has successfully flown you cannot be 100% certain that its next flight will be successful, it is a demonstration of faith each time you step aboard. Now each time you successfully travel by air your faith (confidence/trust) in all those people and other elements involved may increase but never to the point where you can say that it is absolute (unless you’re a fool) because you are dealing with fallible humans and their technologies. Absolute faith (confidence/trust) in the infallible God is when (based on the experience (evidence) of God in your own life and the testimonies of others) you no longer see the need to have to prefix every statement about Him with I believe that God is but can state with absolute confidence (faith) that I know God is. The most frustrating thing for those who lack faith to this degree is that the only argument they can formulate against it will, ultimately, be one from personal incredulity.

But if you want to pretend to base your position on evidence rather than on faith, fine. I've been asking for one single verifiably accurate argument in favor of creationism and/or posatively indicative evidence of that for years and no one had any. We have a long unanswered thread asking for evidence for creationism. In it there was lots of evidence for evolution and some erroneous assertions against it, and a lot of evidence against creationism, but none for it. But you say you have that. Great! What is it?

The Bible as a whole is evidence of The Creator God but you reject that as “it is not objectively testable/verifiable”. Creation itself is evidence of The Creator God but without good reason you will simply dismiss it as nothing of the sort. Personal experience and the testimonies of others is evidence for The Creator God but you reject this based on your assumption that all Christians are ”liars” and “charlatans” to one degree or another. You keep harping on about objective evidence, well take a fossil, what does that fossil itself tell you? Something that once lived, died… that’s it, that’s as objective as that particular piece of evidence can be in and of itself. Questions such as, How did it live? How and when did it die? How did it come to be fossilisedetc. etc. etc. are not answered simply by looking at that fossil, you must gather other evidence(s), each piece of which is objective to no lesser or greater degree. When you attempt to link all of those pieces of evidence together is where objectivity tends to go out the window and subjective interpretation comes in. But do you know what the ultimate problem with all of this is? I’ll tell you. Whatever evidence you may find and however you may interpret it there is no way that you or anyone else can prove any of it objectively and you admit that every time you say that it is “the best explanation” rather than the right explanation. It is a demonstration of faith to accept it as the best explanation however tentatively, however temporarily. Now, you have claimed that you have no faith but you made that claim too hastily and without really thinking about it didn’t you? And since you have made that claim and your ego will not allow you to admit your error you are forced to go to any lengths in order to justify that claim.

And this would mean that you also have evidence for God also, where everyone else in the world says one can only believe in him on faith.

This is another reason why I don’t take you very seriously and would advise you not to take yourself very seriously either. You claim to know what “everyone else in the world says”…. How do you know? How can you know? You don’t and you can’t but you make these kinds of claims anyway…. the kind only a fool would make.

So if you have evidence of God, not only will you finally be able to convert all the atheists out there.

Jesus Christ Himself didn’t do this. Yet seeing some would not believe. And you are mistaken if you think I am here to convert anyone I am not. I am here to share food with other willing sheep.

So I'm all ears for that too.

Yes and with a finger of each hand firmly wedged in each one I’ve no doubt. But there is no need as I am not going to waste my time offering you anything by way of evidence beyond that which I have offered thus far as your attempts to refute it will again be based on nothing more than your faith in the opinions/interpretations of those in whom you claim to have no faith.

Yes, it is a story meant to convince the person hearing it. "Based solely on testimony and authority" remember?

But my “story” is based on the testimony and authority of the infallible living God. Yours is based on the testimony and authority(?) of infallible dying men.

Yeah yeah, I know. If I'm naughty, your Santa will put coal in my stocking.

You should know enough of what The Bible teaches and I believe in by now to have answered in another way. All this kind of remark demonstrates is that however much you like to brag about how intelligent you think you are and that you know so much about so many things you are in fact an ignorant fool where The Bible is concerned and only able to mock but keep it up, you are a good bad example by which we can all learn something.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

.....
If there was litterally nothing there, an explosion cannot destroy anything....

Quick point. If there was ''literally nothing there'' then there wouldn't be any explosion.

FoeHammer.

 

[NailsII]

Quick point. If there was ''literally nothing there'' then there wouldn't be any explosion.

FoeHammer.

OK, a poor analogy.
I really meant that if a weapon was detonated in deep space, it wouldn't destroy anything (compared to the scenes of hiroshima)

Fish face's answer was much better.

 

[NailsII]

You should know enough of what The Bible teaches and I believe in by now to have answered in another way. All this kind of remark demonstrates is that however much you like to brag about how intelligent you think you are and that you know so much about so many things you are in fact an ignorant fool where The Bible is concerned and only able to mock but keep it up, you are a good bad example by which we can all learn something.

The bible teaches that ignorance is above knowledge; non-conformists are fools who deserve a slow, painful death and/or eternal carseration in the worst fire imaginable (complete with gnashing of teeth), justifies war, slavery and infanticide; that a preist is best qualified to determine how infectious skin conditions are...
Need I carry on?

 

[Inan3]

The bible teaches that ignorance is above knowledge; non-conformists are fools who deserve a slow, painful death and/or eternal carseration in the worst fire imaginable (complete with gnashing of teeth), justifies war, slavery and infanticide; that a preist is best qualified to determine how infectious skin conditions are...
Need I carry on?

The Bible doesn't teach this! Where in the world did you get that???

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm sure that you are aware of E=Mc2 - implying that energy and matter are interchangeable forms of the same thing. Therefore, small amount of matter can release huge amounts of energy (as in an atomic weapon) and the converse is also true.

Yes, but the origin of the energy/matter is still in question. Matter may have come from energy, but where did the energy come from?

So I guess what you are telling me is that a small amount of matter released a huge amount of energy and became the incredible universe that we live in. Why didn't the atom bomb work the same way? It seemed to be more destructive rather than constructive.

'Destructive' and 'constructive' are highly subjective terms. Suffice to say, the blast that levelled Hiroshima is nowhere near as energetic as the BB. Indeed, the BB necessarily had/has more energy, since the energy/matter that eventually made up 'Little Boy' was just some of the energy/matter present at the BB.

 

[Aron-Ra]

All the evidence implies that the galaxies are flying apart now. So there had to be a single cosmic expansion at some point in the past; and quantum mechanics suggests that it was the sort of singularity which would exceed anything possible even of atoms deprived of all their internal 'space'.

But the question is WHAT caused this expansion and WHY and HOW and WHERE did the "materials" come from that went "BANG"???

I don't think we'll ever know the answer to that. But it seems to have been a planereal eruption, not so much a "bang" as an extreme expansion from an ultra-concentrated energy state.

You mean like who created God? And who created the guy who created God? And what was God doing sitting alone in the dark for eternity before creating the universe? No, its nothing like that.

God always was and always will be.

How do you know?

Just because we have a beginning and that is all we know, it is not hard to understand or believe that there is a Being who did not.

No actually that is very hard to believe. Nor does it make any sense. Nor do we have anything to indicate that any of this wasn't just made up out of whole cloth.

He wasn't sitting in the dark. This universe is not all there is nor all that there will be. I know you can think farther than the limitations of this universe.

Certainly. So are you saying he wasn't alone? Or that there was light before he said there should be?

Whether you're talking to string thoerists or Taoists, it was two different amorphous extracosmic entities in contact which prompted the rift. Myself, I think that if a rupture in the space-time continuum really is the answer, then it might be that our universe erupted from it like a bubble seems to appear in the bottom of a nearly boiling pot of water, along with myriad others just like it. That's another analogy, but at least its mine. It really doesn't matter to me what the orgin of the universe is. If we were 'destined' to know all things, then it wouldn't be this way. But we don't appear to have any 'destiny', and I think we'll all be extinct before anyone really knows the answer you're pleading for. That's why I prefer to concentrate on what I can know and can show to be true, like evolution, the topic you're trying to avoid.

Well you have your analogy and I have mine and seeings these quantum physicists and you yourself have admitted that you don't know than my analogy is as logical as your.

Wait, what? When is it ever logical to throw out everything we do know just to say that it must have been magic?

My analogy is that when God spoke it into being that it was with such force (BTW just as He intended by His discretion) it stretched out or expanded the heavens.

That's not an analogy. That's mythology.

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Jer 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

I've cited each of these in earlier discussions of how Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrian mythology. The Romano-Persian god, Mithras had a cloak into which all the stars were sewn, and to create night, he would drape his cloak over the firmament, which was a giant crystaline dome over the flat disk-shaped earth.

And sure it matters what the origin of the universe is because if God did it than you would have to rethink a few other things but then that is a good thing.

Like what, for example? And what is there to indicate that any god did it, much less your particular god?

I won't pretend to understand quantum mechanics. I know a whole lot more than you. But quantum physicists know a whole lot more than I, and they've admitted to me that even they don't really know what they're talking about. No one does.

My point exactly, so that one analogy is as good as another.

Except that quantum physics has actual facts behind it -and your god doesn't.

But to add to that GOD KNOWS what He is talking about and it would behoove us all to listen or at least try to.

YOU don't know what YOU'RE talking about -when you pretend to be able to tell what it is that God knows. No one can know that. Add to that; there's no reason to believe your god even exists; but if it does, it never says anything. Well, there is the fossil record, but even you won't pay attention to that. You worship the ravings of mere fallable men instead.

Where do you believe all matter in the universe came from then? If you don't believe God "spoke" the universe into existence, then how do you think it happened?

While I think FH had more issue with your taunting term "incantation", regardless of how you say it. God spoke it into being. Further answered above.

So it didn't exist -in any form- prior to his incantation; hence, everything out of nothing.

Meaning that everything came from nothing as a result of a magic invisible man chanting an incantation spell.

God is not a man. He is Creator of man. Man is made like God ..... BUT God is not a man.

OK, so your god only looks like an ape, but isn't really an ape.

And however you care to term it, God did speak all things into existence and upholds them all by the power of His word..... BUT it was not nothing in this case it was filled with power and energy and life!

You're not making sense. Nor could you possibly know anything you pretend to know so well.

I did strongly prefer the 'steady state' universe until I tried to defend it before a couple of astrophysicists. They effectively proved their point, forcing me concede that a big bang eruption was in fact the only option supported by any evidence at all, and there is a lot behind it. But that isn't what you pretend it is. Its more related to the string theorists' idea that I mentioned before. So I will go with a fourth option; all mass, energy, space itself, and even time -erupted into this dimension from a quantum singularity, which may have been caused by rift in the space/time continuum. Although I would happily entertain any other explanation which has both evidenciary support and explanatary power at least equivilent to current cosmology.

And where did that mass, energy, space itself, and even time, come from that erupted into ths dimension.

You don't know the answer to that any more than I do.

I submit again. The Creator of all that exists as we know it and the One true Intelligent Designer, God Himself!

You mean Lord Krishna?

What about Ahura-Mazda? Gaia? Guru Nanak?

What if the "one" TRUE "god" isn't a god at all? What if it is something else well beyond the primitive notions men call gods?

We don't believe that. We just want you to tell us WHERE the stuff came from and WHY it all went BANG! We believe that in the beginning GOD .... spoke it all into existence because He is a Word Being and all things derive from Him. He is AWESOME God!

He is an imaginary god.

But as long as we can pretend to confidently know that all our imaginary religious entities are really real, and just assert whatever we want to say about them as if we could prove it was perfectly correct, then let me remind you that in the Tao te Ching, (circa 600 BCE) Lao Tzu explained that the planereal rift through which everything flooded into this universe was caused by the collision of light and dark forces in conflict.

Never underestimate the POWER of the force!

Confucius, Lao Tzu, and Obi Wan Kenobi​

 

[Aron-Ra]

The bible teaches that ignorance is above knowledge; non-conformists are fools who deserve a slow, painful death and/or eternal carseration in the worst fire imaginable (complete with gnashing of teeth), justifies war, slavery and infanticide; that a preist is best qualified to determine how infectious skin conditions are...

The Bible doesn't teach this! Where in the world did you get that???

From the Bible. It DOES teach that, and much worse too.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Its not my fault if anything I say exceeds your comprehension. But I will paraphrase: How does "Gopddidit" explain how Goddidit? How does it explain any of the data we see around us? The fossil record? The geologic column? The Hubble ultra-deep field? Your fingernails, hair follicles, impacted wisdom teeth and all the other traits which identify you as an ape? Name anything your excuse explains.

It doesn’t exceed my comprehension but it obviously exceeded yours. I asked you to explain why you think it needs explaining which required an answer not a question.

I showed exactly why your explanation doesn't work. I even gave you one last chance to defend it, but I guess you couldn't comprehend that.

You'll have to do better than that.

Better than point out that it is in fact you that has repeatedly stated this and not I? It is your excuse and not mine. You are beyond a joke, there is nothing even remotely amusing about your posts any more. Being simply mistaken about what I say is one thing deliberately misrepresenting what I say is quite another.

Not only have I never done that, I would never do that. I don't need to and wouldn't want to. Because while you pretend your assumed authority is truth, I look to truth as the authority.

It can't be a "complete" and "firm" trust if it is based on evidence. Faith based on evidence is an oxymoron.

Of course it isn’t. For example, think of all the people and other elements involved whenever you travel by air (assuming that you do). Regardless of how many times an airplane has successfully flown you cannot be 100% certain that its next flight will be successful, it is a demonstration of faith each time you step aboard. Now each time you successfully travel by air your faith (confidence/trust) in all those people and other elements involved may increase but never to the point where you can say that it is absolute (unless you’re a fool) because you are dealing with fallible humans and their technologies.

Then that wouldn't be faith, because faith is defined as an unreasonable conviction which is not based on evidence, and what you're talking about isn't absolute but is based on evidence.

Absolute faith (confidence/trust)

Wait a minute; now you're saying "absolute" faith = (confidence/trust)?! You're getting closer. But the way you've phrased it is redundant. Faith = (absolute confidence/trust) + not based on evidence. Or as AskOxford put it, "complete trust or confidence."

in the infallible God is when (based on the experience (evidence) of God in your own life and the testimonies of others)

Now you're getting closer still: "Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony." --Accurate & Reliable Dictionary "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof" --Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.

you no longer see the need to have to prefix every statement about Him with I believe that God is but can state with absolute confidence (faith) that I know God is.

Then you lie. A rational person should never profess a positive belief in anything which isn’t positively-indicated by either physical or logical evidence. To make such claims without adequate support is deceitful. Because its one thing to preface your opinion of God with the phrase, “I *believe*…”. That would be honest. But it is quite another thing to simply assert as fact your personal speculation about God -as if there was any way you or anyone else could know if that were really true. One should never make a positive claim as if it were a demonstrable fact when there is no way to confirm that, and no evidence at all to implicate it either. Remember that knowledge differs from mere belief in that its accuracy is measurable. If you can't show it, then you don't really know it.

But at least you're starting to use the proper definition of faith, which you've now just said was "absolute confidence", where you used to try to say it only meant "trust" regardless how timid it was, or what that trust was based on.

The most frustrating thing for those who lack faith to this degree is that the only argument they can formulate against it will, ultimately, be one from personal incredulity.

And yet I have not done that. All I've done is challenge you to produce evidence which you assured me your position is based on. But remember that evidence must be objective, meaning that it is factual and can still be demonstrated whether you want to believe in it or not.

But if you want to pretend to base your position on evidence rather than on faith, fine. I've been asking for one single verifiably accurate argument in favor of creationism and/or posatively indicative evidence of that for years and no one had any. We have a long unanswered thread asking for evidencefor creationism. In it there was lots of evidence for evolution and some erroneous assertions against it, and a lot of evidence against creationism, but none for it. But you say you have that. Great! What is it?

The Bible as a whole is evidence of The Creator God but you reject that as “it is not objectively testable/verifiable”.

Oh no, not just on that. I reject the Bible because the only parts of it which can be tested at all have been solidly disproved. That, and because the Bible is largely plagiarized from elder Pagan mythos. It is a human construct of fanciful fables and impossible fairy tales compiled out of bits taken from every senior religion neighboring Jewish lands from 3000 BCE to 100 CE. Another reason to reject it is that there are so many other books, some older than the Bible, which are still today heralded as the "absolute truth" and the "revealed word" of some other god. The Bible has but one distinction, and that is that the guy who invented the printing press happened to be Christian.

Creation itself is evidence of The Creator God but without good reason you will simply dismiss it as nothing of the sort.

You phrased that incorrectly. I dismiss it as nothing of the sort because you provide no good reason to believe otherwise. Because, as I said before, the only way it can be perceived your way is if you assume it was magically created in the first place. Then you assume a magic creator and on both of those assumptions, you add another, that it should just happen to be the only god you were told about as a child. Its not for no reason that I reject your compilation of baseless and erroneous assumptions. I reject them because that's all they are, and you have nothing to show to back any of them up.

Personal experience and the testimonies of others is evidence for The Creator God but you reject this based on your assumption that all Christians are ”liars” and “charlatans” to one degree or another. You keep harping on about objective evidence,

Is this finally an admission that you haven't got any? Because "testimonies of personal experience" are indistinguishable from lies because they are subjective, unverifiable, and unreliable. Can't you show me anything that we can actually show to be really true?

well take a fossil, what does that fossil itself tell you? Something that once lived, died… that’s it, that’s as objective as that particular piece of evidence can be in and of itself. Questions such as, How did it live? How and when did it die? How did it come to be fossilisedetc. etc. etc. are not answered simply by looking at that fossil, you must gather other evidence(s), each piece of which is objective to no lesser or greater degree. When you attempt to link all of those pieces of evidence together is where objectivity tends to go out the window and subjective interpretation comes in.

You don't know what you're talking about. If I look at a fossil of an animal who's dentistry is all made up of grinding molars, then I don't need any other evidence to tell me that this is no carnivore. If I find a fossil molar with four roots and a crown which comes to five points divided by a Y-shaped crevasse, I may not be able to tell if it is a human or not, but I'll know its an ape of some kind. All of that is determined by easily verifiable objective criteria.

But do you know what the ultimate problem with all of this is? I’ll tell you. Whatever evidence you may find and however you may interpret it there is no way that you or anyone else can prove any of it objectively and you admit that every time you say that it is “the best explanation” rather than the right explanation. It is a demonstration of faith to accept it as the best explanation however tentatively, however temporarily.

Wrong again, as always. Since faith is 'absolute', a stoic and complete conviction, then it goes against faith to concede that no matter how certain we may think we are, some degree of error may potentially persist. Keeping the perspective tentative, basing all explanations on evidence alone, and subjecting that to peer-review to be objectively questioned, -is the antithesis of faith.

Now, you have claimed that you have no faith but you made that claim too hastily and without really thinking about it didn’t you?

Wrong. I've already given this more thought than you ever will.

And since you have made that claim and your ego will not allow you to admit your error you are forced to go to any lengths in order to justify that claim.

I think you're squirming now. What "lengths" are you rambling about?

And this would mean that you also have evidence for God also, where everyone else in the world says one can only believe in him on faith.

This is another reason why I don’t take you very seriously and would advise you not to take yourself very seriously either. You claim to know what “everyone else in the world says”…. How do you know? How can you know? You don’t and you can’t but you make these kinds of claims anyway…. the kind only a fool would make.

Really? Does that remind you of the statement above which I highlighted in red for you? You don't know that, you couldn't know that, but you make these kinds of claims anyway, the kind only a fool would make. Well, you're right. I concede that not everyone else in the world says God must be believed on faith. There may be some loony out there who says differently. But to my experience at least, EVERYONE period says that -including you. You just say that with no understanding of what evidence is.

So if you have evidence of God, not only will you finally be able to convert all the atheists out there.

Jesus Christ Himself didn’t do this. Yet seeing some would not believe.

Really? Who saw him? Show me one citation of any unbelieving contemporary who ever mentioned your Jesus. Because I think it strange that he had to have been born both earlier than four years before the Roman calendar and six years after it at the same time, and that he couldn't have been born between those times. I also think it strange that no one outside of the Bible remembers squat about him at all. Don't you find it strange that we could know so much about so many other clearly lesser people at that time, but that is no historic record of Jesus whatsoever? Especially when you talk about hours of global darkness and zombies doing the thriller in downtown Judea. You'd think someone would find that noteworthy.

And you are mistaken if you think I am here to convert anyone I am not.

Oh, well then, congratulations.

I am here to share food with other willing sheep.

They are also why I am here, so that they might not be "sheep" anymore.

So I'm all ears for that too.

Yes and with a finger of each hand firmly wedged in each one I’ve no doubt.

I do wish you would stop projecting your own faults onto those who will not share your ways.

But there is no need as I am not going to waste my time

You mean MY time.

...offering you anything by way of evidence beyond that which I have offered

Wait, you already offered some? When was that? Because I looked for factual circumstances which were accounted for or supported by only one available explanation over any other, but you never listed anything like that in favor of your position.

thus far as your attempts to refute it will again be based on nothing more than your faith in the opinions/interpretations of those in whom you claim to have no faith.

It cannot be "again" what it never was before, and still is not. The proponants of creationism fail it as well as any lack of evidence or preponderance of damning evidence could -either one alone.

But my “story” is based on the testimony and authority of the infallible living God. Yours is based on the testimony and authority(?) of infallible dying men.

Actually, my perspective is based on objectively determinable evidence. Yours is based on the ravings of fallable dying men -with delusions of grandeur.

Yeah yeah, I know. If I'm naughty, your Santa will put coal in my stocking.

You should know enough of what The Bible teaches and I believe in by now to have answered in another way.

I know so much of your Bible by now that this was the only response which still seemed appropriate anymore.

All this kind of remark demonstrates is that however much you like to brag about how intelligent you think you are and that you know so much about so many things you are in fact an ignorant fool where The Bible is concerned and only able to mock but keep it up, you are a good bad example by which we can all learn something.

I simply cannot take your fables seriously anymore. I sincerely tried to for a long time, but the more I learned, the more absurd and repugnant it all became.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Which reminds me, evolution can't be perceived as a fairy tale either unless it adheres to all the criteria of that, like each of the fables in Genesis does.

Yes, it is a story meant to convince the person hearing it. "Based solely on testimony and authority" remember?

In order to be a fairy tale, it should adhere to all the criteria for that. You've only listed one, a criteria of faith rather than fairy tales, and even that one criteria still doesn't apply. It is not a "story". Its an explanation of a set of observed facts and associated natural laws. Nor is it "meant to convince" because its also testable in many ways on many levels, and remains subject to continuous scrutiny in peer review. Thus there is no "reliance on authority" and "testimony" is dismissed outright.

Your position, however, really is just a story, and meant to convince, and it includes folklorish characters, talking animals, magical enchantments and everything else needed to be a fairy tale, because that's what it is.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The bible teaches that ignorance is above knowledge; non-conformists are fools who deserve a slow, painful death and/or eternal carseration in the worst fire imaginable (complete with gnashing of teeth), justifies war, slavery and infanticide; that a preist is best qualified to determine how infectious skin conditions are...
Need I carry on?

The Bible doesn't teach this! Where in the world did you get that???

1. justifies war,
   1. [bible]Joshua 3:10[/bible]
   2. [bible]Deuteronomy 2:24-25[/bible]
2. slavery
   1. [bible]Exodus 21:7[/bible]
   2. [bible]Genesis 17:12[/bible]
3. infanticide;
   1. [bible]1 Samuel 15:3[/bible]
4. that a preist is best qualified to determine how infectious skin conditions are...
   1. [bible]Leviticus 13:2[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

1. justifies war,
   1. [bible]Joshua 3:10[/bible]
   2. [bible]Deuteronomy 2:24-25[/bible]
2. slavery
   1. [bible]Exodus 21:7[/bible]
   2. [bible]Genesis 17:12[/bible]
3. infanticide;
   1. [bible]1 Samuel 15:3[/bible]
4. that a preist is best qualified to determine how infectious skin conditions are...
   1. [bible]Leviticus 13:2[/bible]

It's posts like this that tell me Bible bashers always (and I mean always) avoid the context of the passage.

Whenever anyone critiques a verse or passage of Scripture, study the context of the passage (or its supporting passages) --- it will always pwn the poster --- without fail.

 

[Inan3]

1. justifies war,
   1. [bible]Joshua 3:10[/bible]
   2. [bible]Deuteronomy 2:24-25[/bible]
2. slavery
   1. [bible]Exodus 21:7[/bible]
   2. [bible]Genesis 17:12[/bible]
3. infanticide;
   1. [bible]1 Samuel 15:3[/bible]
4. that a preist is best qualified to determine how infectious skin conditions are...
   1. [bible]Leviticus 13:2[/bible]

Where is the justification. I see only wisdom and direction and protection in our battles.

As to slavery , I see the same here, direction and protection for the treatment of the slave.

God doesn't interfere in the goings on of our societies as you suppose, as we see by the daily infanticide (called abortion today) in our current "civilized" society, but in spite of the civilized or uncivilized way man chooses to live IF men will seek Him He will help us. Israel called on God and God helped them in their lives. When they didn't He left them to their own dilemas.

In that day the priests were qualified to do that.