Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

But, the Bible describes features discovered by modern science. A small analogy is the Mayan calendar.
Straight forward description. No twist, no distortion.
The one I am talking to Chalnoth is an example. There are better examples.

we have learned more about God's creation in 5 centuries of science than in 5 millenia of the bible. Even if you can give a handful of predictions that the bible got sorta right, the fact remains that it hasnt given us a fraction of a percentage of the insight into the universe that science has. elementary school kids are taught as standard discoveries that are mere decades old. plate tectonics only goes back to the 60s.

 

[juvenissun]

we have learned more about God's creation in 5 centuries of science than in 5 millenia of the bible. Even if you can give a handful of predictions that the bible got sorta right, the fact remains that it hasnt given us a fraction of a percentage of the insight into the universe that science has. elementary school kids are taught as standard discoveries that are mere decades old. plate tectonics only goes back to the 60s.

The Bible is not trying to teach science.

We do not recognize science embedded in the Bible is not the fault of the Bible. Science is a negligible part of the Bible. It does not matter even people never understand the scientific part of it.

All these only testify the deep wisdom contained in the Bible, so atheist not only have one fewer reason to attack it, but have one more reason to believe other things said in the Bible.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Then they must have believed the whales were more important than themselves.None of that "Husbands, love your wifes" stuff for me, is there?

Nope --- until love can be reduced to a formula and changed into machine language, only science matters, eh?

Wow. Do you really think people didn't love their mates until the Bible told them to? That's hilarious!

Do you really think people didn't find murdering the innocent to be wrong until the Bible told 'em it was a bad idea? Do you honestly think people didn't want to be stolen from until God handed down the 10 Commandments?

Hilarious.

This is why people who don't understand the subtleties of reality are an immense source of entertainment.

When you distill the world down to a cartoon caricature, you provide us with a comic book. Is that the goal?

 

[thaumaturgy]

The Bible is not trying to teach science.

Bravo!

Then keep the bible out of the science class.

We do not recognize science embedded in the Bible is not the fault of the Bible. Science is a negligible part of the Bible. It does not matter even people never understand the scientific part of it.

The Bible isn't a science book. Check.

Now we need to get this important message out to the folks who built the Creation Museum in Kentucky and who are busy molesting the U.S. Constitution as they try to jackhammer Christian Creationism into the science classes.

All these only testify the deep wisdom contained in the Bible, so atheist not only have one fewer reason to attack it, but have one more reason to believe other things said in the Bible.

The bible says good things and bad things. It speaks rightly and wrongly. It sure does appear to be a human book. I see wisdom in the Bible and I see lack of wisdom in the Bible. In almost exactly the same proportions as I see it in humanity.

 

[thaumaturgy]

But, the Bible describes features discovered by modern science. A small analogy is the Mayan calendar.

Wha...what? The Mayan Calendar is in the Bible? Huh? I'm confizzed.

Did I miss something?

 

[juvenissun]

But it makes no sense whatsoever when you compare it against the history of the universe. Sure, you can take a sentence here or a phrase there out of context and see how it kinda sorta sounds like it might be talking about something that actually happened. But once you look at the context, it's immediately clear that it is talking about something else entirely.

For example, when God said, "let there be light," the context makes it quite clear that the text is talking about simple illumination. By contrast, when the early universe first became dominated by radiation, the temperature would have been well in excess of ten quadrillion Kelvin (10^16 K). No simple illumination this, but a temperature the likes of which hasn't been seen since, a temperature hot enough to cause the nuclei of atoms to evaporate.

Furthermore, the text is talking about light specifically, but the energy at

You did not answer my question which is in an earlier post:

Originally Posted by juvenissun:

Light is described in verse 3. Could the verse 2 describe the status before the inflation? How would you describe the condition with only one common word? Are the "two" words used in verse 2 ("tohuw" and "bohuw") helpful in the description? Are these two words the best words to use? If not, what other words could be used? If more than two words are needed, could you use 10 words to make a better description?

If you are to describe the big bang, what would you say?
Chalnoth says: let there be ?????, and
Chalnoth says: (in the first second) the universe was ????? and ?????

-------

We got into this because you want to see an example of science in the Gen. 1. So you get an example. You may argue on the details. But you do have an example, right from the beginning of the chapter.

Do you like to see another one? It would be one ( or many) of similar nature. Genesis 1 is very hard. Other Books in the Bible have more straight forward descriptions on other science facts.

With the example, I hope you would stop saying that the Gen. 1 is all nonsense. At least Gen. 1 says something which is scientifically debatable.

----------

Originally Posted by juvenissun

That is fine. Then stop using humiliating words.

I have no idea what you're talking about.
...
Look, this creation myth makes perfect sense when you just read it simply, and accept that it was a primitive myth penned by a primitive people.

This is what I am talking about. Bible authors are NOT primitive people. They do not use computer. They do not know the big bang. But, they are much wiser than YOU! You can not even fill the three blanks in this post, let alone to write the whole chapter.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think the Bible has anything to offer of value for morality. The moral values found in the Bible are at times horrendous, at times decent. I'm much better off just relying upon my own moral compass combined with logic.

To believe that Jesus is God has nothing to do with moral value.

So, you are right, the Bible does not promote morality.

 

[Nathan Poe]

To believe that Jesus is God has nothing to do with moral value.

So, you are right, the Bible does not promote morality.

Ah, but what you do based on that belief has everything to do with morality.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The Bible is not trying to teach science.

We do not recognize science embedded in the Bible is not the fault of the Bible. Science is a negligible part of the Bible. It does not matter even people never understand the scientific part of it.

All these only testify the deep wisdom contained in the Bible, so atheist not only have one fewer reason to attack it, but have one more reason to believe other things said in the Bible.

if it isnt a science book then it cannot be used to attack any science. if it isnt a science book then dont look to it for facts about the universe. the bible is to be interpreted and made relevant to how one should live and perhaps to give insight into the spiritual realm but where it makes physical claims it is wrong wrong and more wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

if it isnt a science book then it cannot be used to attack any science. if it isnt a science book then dont look to it for facts about the universe. the bible is to be interpreted and made relevant to how one should live and perhaps to give insight into the spiritual realm but where it makes physical claims it is wrong wrong and more wrong.

Many such claims are 100% correct. Too bad for you.

 

[juvenissun]

Ah, but what you do based on that belief has everything to do with morality.

No. The faith is not based on anything. Otherwise, it is not a faith.

 

[Split Rock]

No. The faith is not based on anything. Otherwise, it is not a faith.

Quoted for truth.

Thanks for stating this. I am glad to see one creationist here admit they do know what "faith" means.

 

[Washington]

Quoted for truth.

Thanks for stating this. I am glad to see one creationist here admit they do know what "faith" means.

Hmm. I figured he meant that faith was baseless.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No. The faith is not based on anything. Otherwise, it is not a faith.

I'm not talking about faith, I'm talking about actions. While I agree with you that religious faith is essentially baseless, it still inspires people to act -- for good or for ill.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not talking about faith, I'm talking about actions. While I agree with you that religious faith is essentially baseless, it still inspires people to act -- for good or for ill.

In Christian, faith leads to action. Morality is one of the results.
In Buddhism, faith leads to inaction (so, there will be no good and no evil).

 

[Nathan Poe]

In Christian, faith leads to action. Morality is one of the results.
In Buddhism, faith leads to inaction (so, there will be no good and no evil).

Wow -- a complete lack of knowledge about both Christianity and Buddhism.

 

[Tomk80]

Wow -- a complete lack of knowledge about both Christianity and Buddhism.

It appears to me that Juvenissun actually want to appear intelligent and insightful by posting short posts that cut straight to the chase. It's a pity he forgets that for making such posts, you need to think before typing.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Except when they name things after Eve, or delve into the power of prayer, or some other such discovery or area of testing.

Do you know some people actually see the Bible as an integral part of western civilization complete with known "memes" and ideas everyone has heard of...yet they don't believe it to be a literal truth?

Do you think the scientists who write about the "Hobbit" fossil found in Indonesia believe Lord of the Rings to be litearally true???

You really need to get out more and meet people who aren't just members of your congregation.

Once in awhile, I notice that they even mention passages in the Scriptures when making one of their have-nothing-to-do-with-the-bible discoveries.

I'm an atheist and I quote the bible all the time and reference it even in conversations! Wow. But you know why I do that? Because I can read and I know the history of how the Bible has influenced Western Thought. And I don't take it literally.

You really went to college? Did you ever take a literature class or anything in the humanities?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know what "memes" are and all that other stuff you said here, but I'll address this part:

Do you know some people actually see the Bible as an integral part of western civilization...

I sure hope so, and I wish I could say MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, but there's still a lot of work to be done.

Especially in the area of the 10/40 Window.

 

[Chalnoth]

Get the phone --- NAMBLA is looking for a PR man.

Why do you think I would support NAMBLA?