Time For This Challenge Again

[OldWiseGuy]

And, if you really believe that deep down, then hey, more power to you.

Hey, I've got the evidence to prove it.

 

[Greg Merrill]

To look towards actual scientists to learn about their field of expertise, is not a "hinderance". It is common sense.

You wouldn't go to your garagist to have him diagnose your lumb on your chest, so why would you go to a non-scientist to learn about science?

I'ld say the opposite of your statement is true: it is a hinderance when you are not able to properly evaluate the credibility of sources.

When a non-biologist arrogantly tells me that all actual biologists are wrong about biology, I tend to shrug my shoulders and walk away.



In context of biology, he would be correct. Why would you use any kind of ancient text when it comes to a topic of 21st century science?



The problem is that in this analogy, scripture is not a sword.
Biology is a scientific subject, so you use scientific data and scientific sources to make your point - if you even have one.

Scripture is not such a source and it literally has no relevancy in biology. Or indeed any other scientific subject.



Run Forrest, run!

Scripture, God, would tell me "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be also like unto him." But the next verse also says "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Pro 26:4,5.
You make statements that are just not true. You speak of people I refer to, and call them "non-scientists" when they actually are scientists. You say "scripture is not a sword" when you obviously are not familiar with scripture at all. Scripture is not a sword made out of metal, but it refers to itself as a sword in such places as Ephesians 6:17 "...the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:". The understanding is plain to the one that has spiritual understanding, though unknown to the one that is spiritually ignorant (without spiritual understanding).
"Run Forrest, run!" Are we in grammar school, calling names? One doesn't have to keep debating someone that childishly wants to use such tactics to carry on their close minded crusade to put forth that which is just not true.

 

[bhsmte]

Hey, I've got the evidence to prove it.

Good for you.

 

[HitchSlap]

Christian beliefs, if according to the Word of God (The Bible) to hold up, and hold up quite well. It is the one that rejects the Word of God that will reject Creationism. There is tons of evidence verifying both Creationism and the Word of God. It is the "evidence" that the evolutionist submits to support their position that keeps proving to be so unworthy, and only worthy of rejection.

Maybe you can shed some light on a question I have, then. If the bible is so correct, then when was Jesus born? Was it during the rule of Herod, or during Quirinius' census?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In our DNA.

Pretty complex example.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Good for you.

Very good. Better than most in fact.

 

[HitchSlap]

Pretty complex example.

Yep, it's much easier to "goddidit."

 

[bhsmte]

Very good. Better than most in fact.

Cool.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Without the Bible, it is true, Creationists, Christians have nothing to debate when it comes to the subject of creation. That is a "no-brainer." Truth is "We do have a Bible, whose "author" is God, Who used human authors under His perfect control, to pen original manuscripts that were the perfect Word of God, without error or contraction, trustworthy, and the text by which every individual will be judged.

Do you have any evidence for all that? He asks rhetorically.

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

If we were to erase all knowledge of Christianity and evolution/geology and just keep the scientific method, young earth creationism wouldn't exist. We would rediscover the theory of evolution and the approximate age of the earth (4.6 billion years) because those were discovered by using the scientific process. Where as all of the evidence for young earth creationism comes from the Bible. The age of the earth for example is done by following the genealogy in the bible and counting back until Adam.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we were to erase all knowledge of Christianity and evolution/geology and just keep the scientific method, young earth creationism wouldn't exist.

Are you bragging or complaining?

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

Are you bragging or complaining?

Neither. I'm making the point that creationism and evolution are not based on the same evidence as has been claimed here. Creationism uses the Bible while evolution was discovered through the use of the scientific method.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Neither. I'm making the point that creationism and evolution are not based on the same evidence as has been claimed here. Creationism uses the Bible while evolution was discovered through the use of the scientific method.

Science reinforces belief in creation as it reveals that we were indeed "fearfully and wonderfully" made. Psalm 139:14

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If we were to erase all knowledge of Christianity and evolution/geology and just keep the scientific method, young earth creationism wouldn't exist. We would rediscover the theory of evolution and the approximate age of the earth (4.6 billion years) because those were discovered by using the scientific process. Where as all of the evidence for young earth creationism comes from the Bible. The age of the earth for example is done by following the genealogy in the bible and counting back until Adam.

Actually that only accounts for the age of modern man, possessing the spiritual capacity to seek and worship his creator. Old earth creationism (OEC) and GAP theory are supported by the bible narrative as well, when properly translated.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yep, it's much easier to "goddidit."

I save my real effort for things that benefit me (I have a list of those things, and the study of evolution isn't on it).

 

[AV1611VET]

I save my real effort for things that benefit me (I have a list of those things, and the study of evolution isn't on it).

The difference between wise men and Homo sapiens is: wise men prioritize.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can't be serious. Why else are you guys here?

I note that this post does not include a link to a post where an atheist is supposedly trying to "disprove god", but it does include an implied repeat of the claim that that is what atheists are supposedly doing. In fact, the wording of "you guys" even implies that that is what all atheists on this site are doing. Worse even: that it is the only reason we atheists are here.

Any time you wish to actually support these claims....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why? Because people will be ETERNALLY judged by God according to that book! That is why.

Yes, that is what you believe because that is what the book says and you believe the book.

The question is: why should one believe the book says?

That book is God's Word, which He had men write down. It is not a book by man

Your second sentence, directly contradicts the first.

, that is untrustworthy, having contradictions and errors as men want to argue regarding certain translations.

Then why are plenty of passages in that book demonstrably untrustworthy, contradicting and in error?

One can disagree, not believe, but when all is said and done, people will still be judged according to "God's book, the Bible."

So the book says, yes.
Why believe what the book says?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Christian beliefs, if according to the Word of God (The Bible) to hold up, and hold up quite well. It is the one that rejects the Word of God that will reject Creationism. There is tons of evidence verifying both Creationism and the Word of God.

What evidence are you talking about?

It is the "evidence" that the evolutionist submits to support their position that keeps proving to be so unworthy, and only worthy of rejection.

Why does the overwhelming majority of working scientists, disagree with that?
How come that the criticism of a foundational theory of biology, always comes from fundamentalist religious people, of which the overwhelming majority has no credentials or qualifications at all concerning these subjects?

 

[DogmaHunter]

On the contrary, scientists have been taught not to try to figure God into their evaluations or conclusions.

No. They have been taught to only include those things that have demonstrable manifestation and influence in processes. They have been taught not to include those things that have no demonstrable manifestation and influence in processes.

God happens to be one of those things with not demonstrable manifestation.
If wish to blame someone for that fact, blame God who apparantly prefers to remain hidden. You can't really blame science for not including factors that aren't detectable.

You should be thankfull that science doesn't do that. If it would, science wouldn't work. Planes wouldn't fly and pc's wouldn't boot.

Also, God and His work is highly detectable in natural phenomenon, whether some people see it or not.

If it is detectable, then people should be able to see it. Especially those people who literally dedicate their life to studying one small aspect of reality and focussing all their energy on that particular thing.

If god(s) were "highly detectable", it would be part of everyone's reality much like gravity, which actually is "highly detectable".

And there also wouldn't be some 3000+ different gods claimed by mankind.

Many scientists in history have attested to the detectable manifestation of God in His creation.

Yes, I agree many people throughout history had all kinds of beliefs concerning their religion of choice. None of them, however, has ever demonstrated anything.

Beliefs are irrelevant.

Some scientists in history have even made discoveries of God's work after reading in the Bible what God has had written down. For instance Matthew Maury's discovery of currents in the ocean after reading Psalms 8:8's reference to the "paths of the seas."

lol

Columbus is said to have had faith to sail beyond the supposed flat earth's horizon, having read of the "circle of the earth" in Isaiah 40:22. Of course skeptics will always stay up late at night dreaming up rebuttals to try to prop up their own rejection of God's Word in order to maintain their own bias and disbelief in it.

The point is that the bible doesn't matter.
Cherry picking a few passages to make a point, while -by the way- ignoring the centuries that those very same passages were understood very differently, and while also ignoring the many many many demonstrably false passages, is not going to help your case.

The fact is that the bible is irrelevant when it comes to finding out how reality works.
First, because evidence determines what is true - not books.
Second, because as it stands, the bible is more often wrong then it is correct.