Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

[chris4243]

I forgot that in science “verified” doesn’t mean “prove”. It simply means “plausible”.

As it means in every sphere of knowledge except mathematics and logic.

 

[Tiberius]

At least 97% if not more has a bible according to the Bible Society.

lol. Yeah, 97% of people on the earth have access to the Bible. Does that include the people living in poverty in Africa who don't even have water to drink? What about all the people in China. I think the population of China makes up more than 3% of the world's population.

And the rest of your post was needless and irrelevant sales pitch.

I forgot that in science “verified” doesn’t mean “prove”. It simply means “plausible”.

In my experience it means that all the information we have supports the theory and fits in with what it predicts.

Since dark matter is nothing more than mathemagic, then all it can predict is a non sequitur.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the news flash where they said that they have determined exactly how Dark Matter works.

Exactly how creationists do it, in my experience.

 

[SkyWriting]

Regardless, if God influences the world, then he can be tested. At the most basic level, if he has an influence, then there should be a statistically significant increase or decrease in some variable - if he preferentially aids Catholics, then Catholic surgeons should be statistically better.

If God has influence in people's lives, then they are likely to believe he exists.
The number of believers is statistically above a random number.

 

[SkyWriting]

lol. Yeah, 97% of people on the earth have access to the Bible. Does that include the people living in poverty in Africa who don't even have water to drink? What about all the people in China. I think the population of China makes up more than 3% of the world's population.

One aspect of "The Word of God" is His Creation. So 100% have been reached, according the the Bible.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[SkyWriting]

They are the same effects that luminous matter has. I assume that you will reject the existence of luminous matter for the same reasons, correct?

So......you didn't read the article then:
"Dark matter is fundamentally different from normal matter. It is invisible using modern telescopes because it gives off no light or heat, and it appears to interact with other matter only gravitationally."

August 21, 2006 - Dark Matter Observed: Most Direct Measurement of Dark Matter Allows Study of its Nature - Press Release

You don't have to read between the lines to find the truth. Just try reading the lines.
"We believe these results prove that dark matter exists."

 

[Erth]

1. The overwhelming breadth of physical evidence supporting the theory of evolution as an accurate description of how all life came to be as it is today

There are Christians who believe in creation and evolution guided by grace, and it's actually a serious interpretation of the scripture as well and not just the faint opinions of a few airheads. Neither Catholicism, nor Orthodoxy, nor many other a church holds a stance against evolution, so I take it you lack information on this point in the argument. You may want to look into it to see what are the actual Christian standpoints available and not just seize the first best hearsay version you can find. You will find that there are churches who accept different points of view even, because it is appreciated that in fact we do not know for certain nor have certain clues from Scripture and tradition about everything.



It is also quite common for Christians to be interested in science and to take it seriously. If you look closer I am sure you will even find that many highly respected scientists in the secularized parts of the world of today are Christians although there is no pressure on them to be Christians at all.

2. Aside from supernatural assertions put forth by ancient fractured theisms written down by men of antiquity, there is no compelling reason to believe that life forms were created magically from dust, clay, ribs, thought, etc.

Correct, there is no compelling reason, and nor is there any compelling reason against God or creation. There is no impartiality. I am sure that you have heard of that from some theories and philosophies of science, and in my opinion the argument can be extended to be valid even outside science. Neither God-belief nor for that matter Atheism is an impartial choice, but both are on the contrary choices and partial or personal choices.

3. The track record of these belief systems [sic; did you mean to say "is known"?] to be incorrect when making assertions about the natural world.

First of all you can't lump them all together as a mass of "ancient fractured theisms" and expect them to represent a coherent whole. What you can do if you want to take say Christianity and the Christian "track record" or tradition rather seriously is to keep an open mind about it and not neessarily expect it to speak all the time the language of contemporary science. If you're interested that is.

4. The pattern and process by which the proponents "teach" and argue for biblical creation as an accurate description of how all life came to be as it is today. It is an inherently flawed, inconsistent, and incapable of self correction.

I did not at all understand what you're trying to say here, but am I right in assuming that there are many different teachers who teach different things even in the broader context of Christianity, and that some of the teachings put forward by Christian teachers are indeed "inherently flawed, inconsistent, and incapable of self correction"? The same can be said for many teachers in any field and not even science is excluded when I say that. So I'm not in disagreement with you if that's what you're saying, but it's actually not a decisive argument against Christianity, but only against bad teachers and delusions.

Commence prattling please.

Why not? I need ten posts to see images and once there I expect to be greatly annoyed by most of the lot of them!

 

[sandwiches]

If God has influence in people's lives, then they are likely to believe he exists.]

Why?

 

[Tiberius]

One aspect of "The Word of God" is His Creation. So 100% have been reached, according the the Bible.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Except I was talking about THE BIBLE. And an investigation of reality does not point to the presence of a God.

 

[chris4243]

If God has influence in people's lives, then they are likely to believe he exists.
The number of believers is statistically above a random number.

Who's the control group?

 

[timatter]

@SkyWriting said "One aspect of "The Word of God" is His Creation. So 100% have been reached, according the the Bible. Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
So are you saying the Native Americans who believed in "The Great Spirit" and any other native tribes all over the world who concluded there was a god by looking at nature are saved?
Also, this verse makes it clear that we can reliably infer things from looking at nature. One of the things nature is telling us is that the earth has a history a lot longer than 6,000 years. We have several tree ring chronologies that go back about 11,000 years. Lake and Ocean sediment yearly "varves" that go back over 100,000 years. Ice cores with yearly layers that go back over 750,000 years and they aren't to the bottom yet. If nature is reliable in telling us about God, so reliable that if we ignore it we will be without an excuse, it is also reliable in other things it is telling us, and one of those things is that the earth is very old.

 

[Davian]

If God has influence in people's lives, then they are likely to believe he exists.

Wouldn't you have to believe in God before you would believe that he has influence in your life? What if you only imagine that God has influence in your life?

The number of believers is statistically above a random number.

What would that number be? Was there a study you could refer to?

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting -"If God has influence in people's lives, then they are likely to believe he exists."

Why?

Because.

 

[SkyWriting]

Wouldn't you have to believe in God before you would believe that he has influence in your life? What if you only imagine that God has influence in your life?

Do animals do that? What evolutionary advantage is there for believing in things that don't exist?

What would that number be? Was there a study you could refer to?

I'm confident that animals don't, humans do. I'll check on that though.

 

[SkyWriting]

@SkyWriting said "One aspect of "The Word of God" is His Creation. So 100% have been reached, according the the Bible. Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
So are you saying the Native Americans who believed in "The Great Spirit" and any other native tribes all over the world who concluded there was a god by looking at nature are saved?
Also, this verse makes it clear that we can reliably infer things from looking at nature. One of the things nature is telling us is that the earth has a history a lot longer than 6,000 years. We have several tree ring chronologies that go back about 11,000 years. Lake and Ocean sediment yearly "varves" that go back over 100,000 years. Ice cores with yearly layers that go back over 750,000 years and they aren't to the bottom yet. If nature is reliable in telling us about God, so reliable that if we ignore it we will be without an excuse, it is also reliable in other things it is telling us, and one of those things is that the earth is very old.

I am fully convinced this wine was "very old" too. So you agree with the Bible.

They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

Native Americans? They will be escorting the mainstream religions to their places in Heavens Reality-School.

 

[SkyWriting]

Who's the control group?

The other Great Apes.

 

[SkyWriting]

Except I was talking about THE BIBLE. And an investigation of reality does not point to the presence of a God.

I'd be happy to see your data on that. You can tell us about your parents experience if you don't have the research at hand.

 

[SkyWriting]

The definition of reality is everything that is real. The theistic definition is whatever they make up. Obviously, the two are quite different.

Spiritual reality is indeed quite different. Matter ends, the Spirit does not.

 

[chris4243]

The other Great Apes.

So what is the number of the other Great Apes that believe in God through randomness, and how can you tell? Why do you say that God does not influence the lives of the other apes, and why would God avoid interacting with apes when He cares for the lilies and the sparrows?

 

[Aeneas]

Do animals do that? What evolutionary advantage is there for believing in things that don't exist?

Terror management theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tiberius]

I'd be happy to see your data on that. You can tell us about your parents experience if you don't have the research at hand.

Science, the investigation of reality, has never come to a point where the invocation of a god has been required.

As evidence, I present to you the huge amount of peer reviewed scientific literature that does not require a God to work.

However, if you can show me some peer reviewed scientific literature that requires the use of a god, and is accepted as true and makes testable predictions, then I'll concede the point.