My Evidence Challenge

[Tiberius]

I guess we'll have to wait until we get to Heaven, won't we?

Of course, that's leaving it too late if you happen to be wrong.

No.

Should there be?

according to you, no. But the lack of testability means that you can never really be sure (unless you want to include gut feelings).

 

[razeontherock]

the lack of testability means that you can never really be sure (unless you want to include gut feelings).

Some of us have a good heart. Some day I should learn to trust it. (Not quite there yet)

 

[Tiberius]

Yah huh. Still can't test it.

 

[razeontherock]

that is not an easy test to devise

 

[thaumaturgy]

Of course, that's leaving it too late if you happen to be wrong.

Yuppers.

Oh well. Too bad so sad!

 

[Tiberius]

that is not an easy test to devise

The ease of the test is not an issue. The ACCURACY of the test is far more important!

 

[Doveaman]

I gotta pity you guys. You have such wildly different ideas about something, and you have no way to find out which of them is true.

There are some truths we don't have to know at this time.

God sent what appeared to be a star to guide the wise men. Not knowing what the star actually was doesn't change what God did.

Personally, I think it was an angel:

“Suddenly, there was a bright light in the cell, and an angel of the Lord stood before Peter.” (Acts 12:7).

“After all this I saw another angel come down from heaven with great authority, and the earth grew bright with his splendor.” (Rev 18:1).

Shame there's no method of testing such things, isn't it?

That's only because the testing equipment hasn't arrived yet. Be patient.

"Now I know in part, but then I shall know fully" (1 Cor 13:12).

 

[Doveaman]

Yes, because when observational science accidentally contradicts the words of a book written by an unknown hand from an unknown time further translated and re-translated across languages then the observational science must surely be in error!

The hand is unknown only by those who do not know God, because the hand belongs to God:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting...” (2 Tim 3:16-17).

there are a lot of them out there who think you are in error and that Genesis should be read literally ergo the earth is rather young.

What exactly do you mean by “literally”? Genesis does not say the earth is young or old.

Except that it clearly states in the creation account:

So that would appear to include dinosaurs as well. Unless you do not believe that dinosaurs were living creatures.

Genesis does not mention dinosaurs in the creation account. We only knew about dinosaurs from the fossils you guys dug up.

You are making claims about Genesis that are not there. Why is that?

Like I said, your argument has nothing to do with the Bible. It's your own interpretation you have a problem with.

When I was a believer I always thought that the greatest way to think of God was the guy who got it all started, set the laws and pushed the go button and it goes.

But occasionally when the laws are broken by the earth's inhabitants He pushes the stop button, then starts over.

I believe the Genesis creation account is one of those occasions where God started over, which would mean that the Genesis account is not an original creation of the universe, but a recreation of life on the earth following a mass extinction event(s):

"Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep...Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light..." (Gen 1:2-3).

In Genesis the earth existed in a chaotic state before the creation events began.

OUCH! That hurt!

No doubt you are fascinated by rocks.

I, on the other hand, am fascinated by the creator of those rocks, and I look forward to the time when He shows me how He did it.

Nice pictures, by the way.

 

[razeontherock]

I believe the Genesis creation account is one of those occasions where God started over, which would mean that the Genesis account is not an original creation of the universe, but a recreation of life on the earth following a mass extinction event(s):

No doubt you have noticed the use of the word "replenish," in Genesis 1:28. As in "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth"

 

[thaumaturgy]

The hand is unknown only by those who do not know God, because the hand belongs to God:

Ummm, yeah. Because it would be completely impossible for a group of regular human beings to come up with a concept like "God" or the stories of the BIble!

QED.

What exactly do you mean by “literally”? Genesis does not say the earth is young or old.

You are correct, except for the needling little fact that your fellow Christians contain a very vocal group who follow the calculations done by Bishop Ussher predicated on a literal reading of the genealogies of the Bible which placed the age at about 6000+ years old.

Don't take it up with me....take it up with your brothers and sisters in Christ who firmly state that the earth is young and there is "biblical" evidence to that fact.

Genesis does not mention dinosaurs in the creation account. We only knew about dinosaurs from the fossils you guys dug up.

Well, when satan planted 'em there we had to dig 'em up.

You are making claims about Genesis that are not there. Why is that?

I like this! You are letting your fellow Christians off the hook for their clearly stated "young earth stance" which they bolster by Biblical means which I'm guessing you disagree with and you are taking it out on ME????

How twisted and messed up is that?

Maybe you should meet some of your co-religionists. If you are not a YEC like them then they probably think you are more like me than like them! Which is the most wonderful of ironies!

Like I said, your argument has nothing to do with the Bible. It's your own interpretation you have a problem with.

Oh Dove, are you really ignorant of the YEC movement or are you playing "coy" with me?

Shall I introduce you to some of your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ?

OK:

Behold ANSWERS IN GENESIS!


Here's there stated belief:

1. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
2. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
3. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
4. The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
5. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.
6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. (SOURCE)

I suggest you take up your argument with them rather than me. You see, I don't interpret the Bible literally. I think it may contain some history and I think it contains many things of a "spiritual" nature, many metaphors and even some sage advice, but I don't interpret Genesis literally.

However, if you wish to debate against people who do you need look no further than your own FAITH. It is a big tent. You should meet many of the others in it.

I, on the other hand, am fascinated by the creator of those rocks, and I look forward to the time when He shows me how He did it.

PSssst, I have the inside scoop on that. You can go to a local college and take an "Introductory Geology Class" if you like. If you really want the real deal take a petrology class.

 

[driewerf]

Do you really think that the people of the time wouldn't have known that it was venus and jupiter? BTW, I use a program called Stellarium (a free download off the net) and while it shows that in the year 2BC (you have to enter the year as -1 because the program includes a year 0 and the calendar doesn't, so 1BC is year 0 and 2 BC is -1) Jupiter and Venus were very close together in the sky, it also shows that they were close to the sun! To put it another way, they only would have been above the horizon in the day time, and the sun's glare would have overpowered them! They wouldn't have been visible!

Venus is visible during the day. If you know where to look it is bright enough to be seen during daytime. Venus and Jupiter together should be certainly bright enough.

Maybe AV1611VET is closer to the truth than he himself thinks.

Remember that King Herod had to inquire as to what time the star appeared.

Had the star been a universal phenomenon, then Herold would not have had to inquire.

In addition, imagine saying, "Look! See that star there!", and the person you're talking to says, "Where? I don't see anything."

Later, another person says he sees it too, but others don't.

This would have alerted the wise men that what they were viewing was indeed the star of Bethlehem.

Maybe AV1611VET is

 

[Tiberius]

There are some truths we don't have to know at this time.

That's very wise.

Venus is visible during the day. If you know where to look it is bright enough to be seen during daytime. Venus and Jupiter together should be certainly bright enough.

So then why is it that such a thing has never been mentioned since? Or do you think that was the only time Jupiter and Venus were together in the sky?

Indeed, using that program Stellarium I mentioned, I was able to find out that the planets Jupiter Venus and Mercury were all grouped together very close in the sky earlier this year, and yet there was certainly no star of bethlehem kind of thing going on!

 

[razeontherock]

Light pollution? I knew about the event you're talking about in advance, and I never found it.

 

[Tiberius]

Yeah, light pollution. From a rather big source called The Sun!