Hypothetical for Scientists

[AV1611VET]

Think what you want to think -- the Bible is wrong.

Ya --- we've heard that for two centuries now.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Dunno --- I think that's Lucapsa's point: nature speaks for God.

Whereas my point is: nature is hostile to God, but against its intended purpose. (Thus it "groans" --- wanting to be back to the way it was in Genesis 1.)

God vs. nature? His own creation's gotten out of hand, has it?

If it does, it does so against God's written revelation (the Bible).

God didn't write the Bible, so it's hardly His revelation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then The Book has nothing useful or relevent to add on the subject.

Oh believe me, the Bible doesn't add to you guys' interpretation of science --- It subtracts from it.

 

[AV1611VET]

God vs. nature? His own creation's gotten out of hand, has it?

Now you're getting the point. It is so out of hand that nature "groans".

God didn't write the Bible, so it's hardly His revelation.

Ya --- we've been hearing that for two centuries now.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ya --- we've heard that for two centuries now.

You've been hearing it for close to two millenia now, you mean. But at least the people who say it don't get burned at the stake anymore.

 

[milkyway]

Oh believe me, the Bible doesn't add to you guys' interpretation of science --- It subtracts from it.

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Alice in AV1611VET-land

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oh believe me, the Bible doesn't add to you guys' interpretation of science --- It subtracts from it.

Agreed -- subtracts about 1900 years of knowledge and leaves the bronze age superstitions behind.

 

[AV1611VET]

You've been hearing it for close to two millenia now, you mean.

Yes --- millenia --- thanks for the correction.

But at least the people who say it don't get burned at the stake anymore.

I could say something here, but I'll keep quiet.

 

[PacificPandeist]

The Bible is baby talk written for the benefit of people too primitive to understand concepts like "billions of years" and "evolution by natural selection" and "the Earth moves around the sun" -- God wouldn't tell the ancients a truth that would drive them mad and make them disbelieve by being so beyond what they could comprehend!!

I conclude that my God is simply a much better bowler than the God of the literal creationist.... my God can stand at the proper end of the lane and bowl a perfect strike; the God of the literal creationist must run down to the pins and put the ball right in front of them before giving it a push....

 

[tanzanos]

The Bible is baby talk written for the benefit of people too primitive to understand concepts like "billions of years" and "evolution by natural selection" and "the Earth moves around the sun" -- God wouldn't tell the ancients a truth that would drive them mad and make them disbelieve by being so beyond what they could comprehend!!

I conclude that my God is simply a much better bowler than the God of the literal creationist.... my God can stand at the proper end of the lane and bowl a perfect strike; the God of the literal creationist must run down to the pins and put the ball right in front of them before giving it a push....

Not true. The ancient Greek Ionian philosophers believed that the earth was round, that the earth orbited the sun, that life originated from the sea and evolved all the way to humans, that disease was from natural causes.
The common denominator between them? NONE BELIEVED IN GOD OR GODS. They were ATHEISTS.

Heraclitus wrote:"This cosmos was neither made by Gods nor by man for it was and will remain forever like the eternal fire".
Democritus (the father of the Atom) believed that there are other worlds in this universe inhabited by life. That life originated from the sea and evolved. That all matter is made up of the same building blocks called atoms.
All this 600 BC
There is more but it will take pages to cite.

 

[MarcusHill]

The Ionian philosophers were learned men writing for learned men, they weren't religious leaders writing moral homilies to be read for the instruction of common bronze age folk.

 

[FishFace]

Ya --- we've been hearing that for two centuries now.

And you've been implicitly claiming that God wrote the Bible for what feels like 200 years, and you've still not given us a sensible reason to believe you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dunno --- I think that's Lucapsa's point: nature speaks for God.

No, that was your point. Here is what you said in response to Adam having/not having a bellybutton: "
He wasn't born --- he was created. Also, it would serve as a powerful testimony to his progeny of who he was."

You state quite clearly that God would not give Adam a bellybutton (evidence of a developmental history) so that he would be a witness to his creation. So why does the Earth have evidence of a developmental history?

Whereas my point is: nature is hostile to God, but against its intended purpose. (Thus it "groans" --- wanting to be back to the way it was in Genesis 1.)

Did Adam start growing a bellybutton after he was created?

If it does, it does so against God's written revelation (the Bible).

No, it goes against your interpretation.

 

[nvxplorer]

Also, please tell me how that's "deceitful" when He put what He did in writing?

*scratches head*

Are you suggesting that anything put in writing is necessarily true?

 

[thetruthhurts]

Creationism is based on the fact that the Bible is the true word of God. That the Bible is fact, not just a rudimentary explanation for "unevolved" human beings. Without the Bible debate, Creationism has no leg to stand on.

The bible cannot be taken word for word as it has been changed over the years by different people/organizations. People that take the bible word for word without researching who wrote the words are keeping themselves ignorant. If you do not believe me take a theology course and research the origins of the bible. In fact, take a trip to Italy, go to the museums, you can see some of the original text. You will be AMAZED. Many things will surprise you, how many times texts has been altered and how much text has been left out. You have to remember that during the time the bible was written only certain people could read and write. Many scribes changed the "word of God" as they wrote the versions as they believed it should be written. This has been proven by looking at actual original script from back when the Bible was originally written. Of course, those of you that are so ignorant as to say things are just how the Bible is written are people that probaby will not even look into who wrote it. So you have no facts to support your belief of creationism. We have actual facts on evolution. Scientific data that the world is much much older than 6,000 years old. Data that you can see and hold. You cannot prove who wrote your Bible. And you can prove that the Bible has been CHANGED thousands of times from the original text! So creationism, it's a belief for the ignorant. For the same people that believe the world poofed into existance must believe that magicians are Gods! No, there is an explanation and there is truth. It is not magical though. It is logical and there are processes. Before you stand on your high-horses and base all of your arguments on a book, look into who actually wrote your book, for it was man, not a God.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible cannot be taken word for word as it has been changed over the years by different people/organizations.

It has, huh?

Well, let's take a look at one of the most controversial passages and see:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

For three be, that give witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [For three be, that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, or Son, and the Holy Ghost]; and these three be one.

I'd say God is pretty good at preserving His Word.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I'd say God is pretty good at preserving His Word.

Pretty good is not good enough to defend word for word accuracy. That only comes with perfection. I'd like to see how it differs from the first known compiled bibles or how the OT differs from the first known torahs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pretty good is not good enough to defend word for word accuracy.

Believe me, if it's pretty good because God did it, it's more than good enough for us.

That only comes with perfection. I'd like to see how it differs from the first known compiled bibles or how the OT differs from the first known torahs.

That's like saying I won't believe this apple in my hand is good, until I see a bad apple in the bunch first.

Why do you want to see contradictory evidence in order to validate non-contradiction???

 

[FishFace]

Believe me, if it's pretty good because God did it, it's more than good enough for us.

You assert.

That's like saying I won't believe this apple in my hand is good, until I see a bad apple in the bunch first.

It's more like saying that I won't believe these apples in this basket are good until I've had a look at the ones underneath to make sure they're not bruised or covered in worms.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's more like saying that I won't believe these apples in this basket are good until I've had a look at the ones underneath to make sure they're not bruised or covered in worms.

And if you find one type of apple that's fresh, and all the other types are rotten, which ones would you eat?