To all athiests out there: bring it on

[unworthyone]

LOL. This thread is great.

 

[Risen Tree]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
I don't think science disproves the bible, nor does it impact someone's faith. Certainly, very little of what is in the bible is supported by scientific evidence - but that does not mean one should throw their bible away. It just means that the bible is not a science textbook. Just because someone does not believe everything that is in the bible, does not mean they don't beleive in God (they just don't beleive in a God that you find acceptable).

I would disagree.  Modern-day science has purposed itself to attempt to prove the theory of naturalism, that is, that tangible reality is all that exists, and there is no God.  This is entirely different from its original purpose of taking whatever the evidence is and drawing the proper conclusions from it.

Assuming God did create the universe and the Bible is His inherent, infalliable word, why would He choose to make it unscientific?  It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[lithium.]

I would disagree. Modern-day science has purposed itself to attempt to prove the theory of naturalism, that is, that tangible reality is all that exists, and there is no God.

I"m not sure if I understand. Are you saying that science says that there is no god, because if you are then you would be wrong. There is no theory, or any part of science that says that there is no god.

 

[daughter of the king]

Originally posted by ifriit
If this is the case, then why do radiometric dating techniques consistently indicate an age of 4.55 billion years, +/- 1%?

how did the people get that age??? we God created the world he did not create in new he created it fully mature, adam was a man not a baby.

the trees were mature and laiden with fruit

the animals were of an age able to bear children

so who is to say God didn't create the world thousands of years old??!!

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
I would disagree.  Modern-day science has purposed itself to attempt to prove the theory of naturalism, that is, that tangible reality is all that exists, and there is no God.  This is entirely different from its original purpose of taking whatever the evidence is and drawing the proper conclusions from it.

Science has attempted to prove no such thing. It doesn't even make sense; science simply makes the *assumption* that everything that matters can be measured. Note that this doesn't necessarily imply that everything is tangible - only that everything has tangible effects.

Science does not attempt to disprove the existance of God; you can't even phrase the question in a scientifically informative way, and still have it make any sense.

This is not a bad thing, mind you - mathematics doesn't refer to God either, and you won't see mathematicians saying "but perhaps pi used to be rational, until God changed it".

 

[What is a Darwin?]

Hey everyone,

I,m a good friend of tacoman and I'm going to be helping with this mess of questions. So think of me as another question answer man.

 

[seebs]

Okay, well, we can try again: What scientific evidence can you offer that the world is young? I am rejecting claims based in, say, geneologies in the Bible; there are many hermeneutics open to me, and I am not willing to commit to something based on the *guess* that that part's literal. Rather, I'd like to see the evidence that would lead you to suspect that it's literal.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by tacoman528
To any athiests or agnostics,
I challenge anyone who thinks that science disproves the bible. Because it doesn't, and I'm willing to back up that statement. Reply to this message if anyone thinks there is evidence for The Big Bang, evolution, or anything else that is anti-bible and anti-science and I will personally make sure that you never use that against a new christian who doesn't absolutely know every little trick that you use on the likes of them. And to any christian that has a question about bible-science, feel free to ask me. I'll do my best to answer your question. And (to you athiests again) don't waste my time with rediculous questions like: what if nothing exists, what if this life is all one big dream and other things. I hope that I can clear up any misunderstandings about how science and the bible conradict each other. Later

You are putting evolution, and big bang theories as if atheist, and agnostics were the only people that believe it. There is a lot of christians that believe in the evolution, and big bang theory. The theories do not at all say that god doesn't exist.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by daughter of the king
how did the people get that age??? we God created the world he did not create in new he created it fully mature, adam was a man not a baby.

the trees were mature and laiden with fruit

the animals were of an age able to bear children

so who is to say God didn't create the world thousands of years old??!!

I guess it's been a while since we have delved into the distinctions between "mature" and "aged."  Making the assumption, for the sake of discussion, that a god created the earth and all life on it relatively recently.  You are contending that the mature state of that creation would account for the much higher age estimates made by science.  The estimates however, are not based on signs of maturity, but rather signs of a specific "aging" process.

Think of it in the terms you used.  If Adam was created mature, he would have the proportions of an adult, but he wouldn't have an appendectomy scar.  The former is maturity, the latter is indicative of a history. 

A better example might be the tree you mention.  It may be created mature and capable of reproducing, but it would be nonsensical to create it with growth rings.

So the mature creation argument fails because signs of maturity and signs of age are not the same thing.

-brett

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
Modern-day science has purposed itself to attempt to prove the theory of naturalism, that is, that tangible reality is all that exists, and there is no God.

Not true. Science concerns itself with finding naturalistic explanations for the observed behavior of the world around us. In this endeavour it has been very successful, as our modern quality of life can attest.

Science only disproves God if you were foolish enough to assign to God those gaps in our knowledge upon which the light of science had not yet shone.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by What is a Darwin?
Hey everyone,

I,m a good friend of tacoman and I'm going to be helping with this mess of questions. So think of me as another question answer man.

Oooh. Tag team creationists!

How about answering the human/chimp DNA thread for starters?

 

[sampo]

[crickets chirping]

 

[tacoman528]

To Aceldama,
first of all, the universe was created in six days, not one. Try to get your stories right. I believe the earth was created in six days and not millions of years because that's what the bible says. But i'm sure that is not enough evidence so I will give you scientific proof. If the plants were created on the third day and the sun was created on the fourth day, how did the plants live if the "days" were actually longer that about a week

 

[OneLargeToe]

You have a bizarre understanding of what "scientific proof" is.

 

[lithium.]

Heh yeah I was going to ask the same question. I don't think he knows what scientific proof means.

 

[tacoman528]

To David Gould's first question,
My friend Joe will be answering the earth science questions because I'm very busy with all the others. Please wait for the answers to your...many questions. He should be able to answer them in this evening

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by tacoman528
To Aceldama,
first of all, the universe was created in six days, not one. Try to get your stories right. I believe the earth was created in six days and not millions of years because that's what the bible says. But i'm sure that is not enough evidence so I will give you scientific proof. If the plants were created on the third day and the sun was created on the fourth day, how did the plants live if the "days" were actually longer that about a week

I think you're missing the sense of the question. What if someone isn't even convinced that the plants and sun were "created" in that order at all, but rather, thinks that the sun formed from a ball of gas billions of years ago?

You said you'd offer scientific evidence to show that the creation story is literally true - but that means you have to be able to tell us what physical evidence in the world supports this belief.

 

[tacoman528]

I also encourage anyone with supposed evidence for evolution to go to (please replace the dashes with dots) www-drdino-com because he has a 250,000 dollar reward for anyone who can convince him that evolution is true, he will also be happy to answer any of your questions.

 

[tacoman528]

To live free or die,
thanks for the help, I have so many questions I don't know what to do with them.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by tacoman528
I also encourage anyone with supposed evidence for evolution to go to (please replace the dashes with dots) www-drdino-com because he has a 250,000 dollar reward for anyone who can convince him that evolution is true, he will also be happy to answer any of your questions.

LOL he will answer any of our questions heh that's funny.